Action Research in

Education

Currently overseen by Maureen McGinty
Originally prepared by Dr Stephen Waters-Adams
S Waters-Adams, Faculty of Education, University of Plymouth,
2006

CONTENTS
Part One: Introduction
Part Two: A Theoretical Underpinning for Action Research in
Education
Part Three: Doing Action Research
Part Four: Limitations and Criticisms of Action Research
Part Five: Tasks
Part Six: Further Reading


PART ONE
INTRODUCTION

1 Why should I use action research?
Because you want to change your practice. You may be concerned that
things might not be going as you wish, or you may need to implement a new
initiative but are unsure how to do it effectively. What you want is a way of
sorting out these concerns that offers practical solutions, but that derives
from the specific circumstances of your practice. You know that someone
elses solution may have merit, but that it is never quite right for the
individual situation within which you work. You know that practice is always
influenced by context.

2 How does this qualify as research?
Because the act of finding your solution makes you understand your practice
better not only what you are doing, but also the factors that affect what
you do. Action research therefore has two aspects. The starting point is to
sort out a problem or issue in practice; to this extent an action researcher
seeks a solution. But the process can also be used as a deliberate attempt to
understand practice better a traditional research attitude. What is most
important in both approaches is that you are open, honest and rigorous.

3 What do we mean by practice?
From the perspective of action research, the best way to think about practice
is the way you carry out your professional actions. This is, of course, what
you do, but it is also why you think you should be doing things the way you
do. You will hear of the theory-practice divide; action research as an
approach cuts across this divide, encouraging a practitioner to consider both
aspects as part of a single whole.
The aim of an action researcher is to bring about development in his or her
practice by analysing existing practice and identifying elements for change.
The process is founded on the gathering of evidence on which to make
informed rather than intuitive judgements and decisions. Perhaps the most
important aspect of action research is that the process enhances teachers
professional development through the fostering of their capability as
professional knowledge makers, rather than simply as professional
knowledge users. In an age of centralisation and the proliferation of national
guidelines and strategies, action research can help teachers feel in control of
their own professional situation.

Consider:
What aspects of your professional practice are you currently interested
in developing?

4 What is action research about?
Action research is a practical approach to professional inquiry in any social
situation. The examples in this component relate to education and are
therefore of particular relevance to teachers or lecturers engaged in their
daily contact with children or students. But professional practice need not be
teaching: it may be management or administration in a school or college, or
it may be in an unrelated area, such as medicine or the social services. The
context for professional inquiry might change, but the principles and
processes involved in action research are the same, regardless of the nature
of the practice.
Indeed, action research did not arise in education (see Lewin 1948), but was
applied to the development of teaching as its potential was identified. Of
particular influence was the work of Lawrence Stenhouse, who famously
advocated that curriculum research and development ought to belong to the
teacher (Stenhouse, 1975 p. 142). He was most adamant that it is not
enough that teachers work should be studied: they need to study it
themselves (p.143).
Key text: Stenhouse, L. (1975) An Introduction to Curriculum Research and
Development, London, Heinemann. (particularly ch.10 The Teacher as
Researcher)
As its name suggests, action research concerns actors those people
carrying out their professional actions from day to day - and its purpose is to
understand and to improve those actions. It is about trying to understand
professional action from the inside; as a result, it is research that is carried
out by practitioners on their own practice, not (as in other forms of
research), done by someone on somebody elses practice. Action research in
education is grounded in the working lives of teachers, as they experience
them.
Carr and Kemmis (1986) describe action research as being about:
the improvement of practice;
the improvement of the understanding of practice;
the improvement of the situation in which the practice takes place.
The notion of improvement can be problematic when viewed from the
outside. One persons improvement can be another persons deterioration. It
depends on the beliefs and values underpinning the individuals perspective.
Paradoxically, however, this uncertainty is perhaps the one truth of
professional practice. Practice is contingent upon the practitioners
intentions, values and beliefs and the situation in which those elements are
given form. Educational research through action research does not produce
understanding that has universal truth; it is about me in the here and now
understanding what I can do to ensure my values and intentions are realised
in my teaching situation. If my deliberations produce an understanding
which helps me, then I can offer it to others to try. In this sense, action
research can produce generalisations about practice, but such
generalisations are only part of a wider search for understanding. They are
not directly applicable beyond the contingencies of my practice. Hamilton
(1981) encapsulated this when he reflected that to generalise is to render a
public account of the past, present or future in a form that can be tested
through further action and inquiry.

Consider:
To what extent do you ever merely implement a teaching directive? Is
it possible?

The reality of practice in a social situation means that it is impossible to
separate the three areas Carr and Kemmis mention. Focus on one may give
insights into the others, for it is frequently impossible to improve teaching
without understanding the dynamics of the situation in which that teaching is
carried out. Children, students, classrooms and colleges all vary, as do the
management structures, schemes of work, course programmes and
assessment procedures which impose structure on them. Practice is not
easily packaged! Some writers about action research, Carr and Kemmis
amongst them, have explored the potentially political nature of analysis
within the process that follows from this realisation and have promoted
action research as a means of social change. They see action research as
being emancipatory, producing an understanding of the workplace that is
empowering professionally.
Key text: Carr, W. & Kemmis, S. (1986) Becoming Critical: education,
knowledge and action research. Lewes, Falmer.
Action research can thus be used to:
understand ones own practice;
understand how to make ones practice better;
understand how to accommodate outside change in ones practice;
understand how to change the outside in order to make ones practice
better.

5 How does action research work?
At its heart, action research involves the careful monitoring of planned
change in practice. A decision is taken that a particular action may either
yield improvements or provide information as to the nature of the teaching
situation. The action is thus used as a research tool. Both elements of action
and research are of equal prominence in the approach. It can be thought of
as:

research on action
by using
action as a tool for research

with the process being driven by a dialogue between the elements of:

action and the intentions behind action
or
practice and the values behind practice.

Emphasising the individual nature of action research, Jack Whitehead (1985)
puts forward a simple representation of how the process feels:
1. I experience a problem when some of my educational values are
negated in my practice;
2. I imagine a solution to my problem;
3. I act in the direction of the solution;
4. I evaluate the outcomes of my actions;
5. I modify my problems, ideas and actions in the light of my evaluations.
(p.98)
Key text: Whitehead, J. (1985) An Analysis of an Individuals Educational
Development: the basis for personally oriented action research, in: Shipman,
M. (ed.) Educational Research: principles, policies and practices, Lewes,
Falmer.
5 The action research cycle
At the simplest level, therefore, action research involves a spiral or cycle of
planning, action, monitoring and reflection:


This sequence underpins the process of the inquiry but be prepared to find
fuzzy edges between the stages as your inquiry proceeds. For a start, you
will probably not start with planning; there may be much monitoring and
observation of existing practice (reconnaissance) before you are ready to
plan and implement a change. As you become more involved with your
research, you may find it hard to detach one element of the process from
another. You may find yourself reflecting as you are acting something that
Donald Schn (1983) calls knowing-in-action and monitoring also will
take place as action proceeds. However, once that first change is
implemented the action research cycle proceeds generally in the above
manner.
This basic structure has been elaborated in different representations of the
same process see, for example, Elliott (1981), Kemmis and McTaggart
(1982), Ebbutt, (1985), McKernan (1988) - each of which promotes the
same cyclical or spiral approach to action and reflection.

Consider:
Can you see any limitations or problems with this kind of approach to
professional development?
Make a note of them and review them as you go through the rest of
the component.

All representations of the action research process on paper are simplistic. In
reality, life is complex and things rarely go as planned. Indeed, although
action research may start with a carefully planned action, the nature of the
process makes the outcomes uncertain. Links emerge with aspects that were
not anticipated - perhaps the timing of the session (first thing after lunch
break) is as important a factor as the grouping Im using? and the inquiry
can deviate from its original path as these aspects are explored. McNiff
(1988, p 45), drawing on the work of Whitehead, reminds us of the
messiness of action research, showing a process that becomes spirals on
spirals:

Key text: McNiff, J. (1988) Action Research: Principles and Practice,
Basingstoke, Macmillan

6 Individual or collaborative?
So far, this account has focused on the individual nature of action research,
reflecting Whiteheads perspective on the process. This is not to say that
groups of people within a school or college cannot undertake a collaborative
action research project, exploring how best to change institutional practice,
but it is important to realise the individual nature of practice itself. If
reflection on practice involves engaging with intentions, values and beliefs,
then strong elements of these will be intensely personal. However, some
writers about action research claim that the best (by which they mean the
most emancipatory) action research is collaborative in nature, involving
groups of people exploring and challenging the constraints of their
professional lives. See, for example, Elliott (1991).
Key text: Elliott, J. (1991) Action Research for Educational Change,
Buckingham, Open University Press.
There is a sense in which collaboration can be an extremely important
element of action research. In striving to reach an understanding of their
practice, action researchers will want to seek validity in what Whitehead calls
their claims to knowledge. In order to achieve this, the most thorough
critique of data is desirable. There is a limit to the potential of individual
reflection; action researchers should seek the views of others as to the
meaning of the data they have collected. In this way, the action research
process becomes a little like the process of science there is an
epistemological necessity for collaboration in the interpretation of data. The
more ideas one can gather, the nearer one might get to the meaning of the
data. Indeed, Carr and Kemmis describe action research as a critical
educational science.
Consider:
How might you enable or encourage collaboration in action research in
your place of work?
What factors might help or hinder it?



7 Methods
The prime criterion for choosing a particular data gathering method in action
research is whether it is anticipated that the method will give useful
information about the practice under study. It is sometimes thought that
methods used in action research are purely qualitative. This does not have
to be true. Although the overall analysis of the data generated by any
methods used will be qualitative in nature, numerical or statistical
information may be of great value to that analysis. For example, a statistical
breakdown of examination or SATs passes may be a useful piece of data
when exploring the effect of aspects of practice.
What is most important is that the researcher understands that different
research methods illuminate only particular aspects of a situation. None give
a whole picture. In seeking evidence of her practice, or the effectiveness of a
change in practice, a teacher needs to look at it from different perspectives;
she needs to employ a triangulation of methods. This is a simple principle,
involving the careful choice of a range of data gathering techniques, each of
which might illuminate a different aspect of the same issue:
The principle of triangulation:

In this case, ? might be childrens engagement during science sessions.
Each method will give access to different aspects of the situation. There will
still be areas not illuminated, but more is known than if only one method is
used. Also, cross-referencing of data from different methods adds to the
overall reliability of the research process. (See also the section on
Triangulation in the component on Qualitative Research by Peter Woods.)
As long as they are aware of the limitations of a particular method, action
researchers may thus use any of the following to help them reflect on their
concern:
observation schedules of children, students or themselves;
audio and video tape recording;
structured or semi-structured interviews;
class records;
statistical indicators;
field notes;
an analytic memo;
sociometry;
photography;
repertory grids;
questionnaires;
etc.!

The list may seem daunting, but each method enables a particular
perspective to be taken on a situation. Cohen et al (2000) and Hopkins
(1993) both give comprehensive explanations of these data gathering
methods, carefully exploring their advantages, disadvantages and potential
uses.

8 Summary
Action research is a practical way for individuals to explore the nature
of their practice and to improve it.
Action research encourages practitioners to become knowledge-
makers, rather than merely knowledge-users.
Action research uses action as a means of research; planned change is
implemented, monitored and analysed.
Action research proceeds in an action-reflection cycle or spiral.
The process can be messy; as research proceeds, wider links are likely
to be identified.
Action research is carried out by individuals, but these individuals may
work collaboratively.
Action researchers may use a variety of research methods, both
qualitative and quantitative.
Action researchers must ensure triangulation in their methods.

Back to Top

PART TWO

A THEORETICAL UNDERPINNING FOR ACTION RESEARCH IN
EDUCATION
Consider:
On what basis might action research be justified as a valid exploration
of practice?
Make notes, then read on.

1 Understanding practice
It was mentioned above that action research cuts across the theory-practice
divide, adopting a position which implies that both elements are part of each
other. Carr and Kemmis (1986) state that:
Teaching....can only be understood by reference to the framework of
thought in terms of which its practitioners make sense of what they are
doing. Teachers could not even begin to practise without some knowledge
of the situation in which they are operating and some idea of what it is that
needs to be done.
(p.113)
This statement in itself does not imply anything other than a cause-effect
relationship between theory and practice, but Carr and Kemmis move
quickly to highlight what they see as a crucial reciprocity between the two:
The twin assumptions that all theory is non-practical and all practice is
non-theoretical are, therefore, entirely misguided..... Theories are not
bodies of knowledge that can be generated out of a practical vacuum and
teaching is not some kind of robot-like mechanical performance that is
devoid of any theoretical reflection. Both are practical undertakings whose
guiding theory consists of the reflective consciousness of their respective
practitioners.
(p.113)
In this view, a practitioners action cannot be considered as simply
containing propositions which stand outside that action and direct it. Both
proposition and practice are in a process of mutual construction of each
other. As the teacher teaches, she is giving concrete form to ideas (tacit or
espoused) which are clarified, extended or contradicted by her practice.
Elliott (1991) suggests that there is a difference between ideas about
education and the educational meaning of an idea that can only become
clear in action. Such reasoning is close to that of Whitehead (1985, 1989).
Pursuing the idea that all practice is driven by the participants values,
whether articulated or not, he considers that their meaning can only be
identified through consideration of practice.
This intimate relationship between theory and practice is explored in depth
by Winter (1987, 1989). Winter suggests that any social practice is
constituted by a complex of contradictory elements, which are experienced
in almost instantaneous succession as a single essence and a plurality of
qualities, as universal and specific, as self-defined and as defined-in-
relation-to-another (Winter 1987, p.12). He claims that any attempt to
understand practice must be dialectical (see Part Three Analysis). The
understanding which informs practice is not theory, standing outside
practice, but a process of theorising in which meaning resides in the
relationships between the elements which constitute the practice. Within this
perspective, the reality of a teachers understanding is impossible to
construct in propositional terms, but can only be accessed by appreciating
the dialectical interplay of these elements as they exist in the experience of
practice. Woods (1996) describes how this appreciation of the multilayered
nature of reality has informed methodological discussion in the postmodern
era of educational research. Approaching the field particularly from the
perspective of ethnography (see Woods, 1986; Hammersley and Atkinson,
1995), he claims that we cannot understand the reality of practice without
trying to identify the nature of the competing perspectives which constitute
it. It does not exist out there, but in the continuing interaction between
participants and those participants intentions, beliefs and values. (See also
the component on Qualitative Research by Peter Woods.)
This understanding of reality exposes the reflexivity of our consciousness.
When faced with the challenge of understanding a situation, we cannot do so
without using our existing ideas and beliefs to help us interpret.
Understanding thus becomes personal; there is no inevitability of meaning
dictated by the facts themselves.

2 The requirements for a research approach
The theory-ladenness of action and the reflexivity of consciousness present
difficulties when it comes to the understanding of professional practice. The
first suggests that it can only be fully understood from the inside; the
second that an outside interpretation will inevitably impose meanings on a
situation which may or may not be there. Yet the world of education and
other professional disciplines is full of outside solutions or recommendations
for individuals practice. Altricher et al. (1993) suggest that two differing
rationalities are in conflict here, the technical and the reflective:
Technical rationality suggests that:
there are general solutions to practical problems;
these solutions can be developed outside the practical situations, in
research or administrative centres;
the solutions can be translated into teachers actions by means of
publications, training, administrative orders, etc.
Reflective rationality suggests that:
complex practical problems demand specific solutions;
these solutions can be developed only inside the context in which the
problem arises and in which the practitioner is a crucial and
determining element;
the solutions cannot be directly applied to other contexts, but can be
made accessible to other practitioners as hypotheses to be tested.
The application of action research to education arose out of a dissatisfaction
with the technical approach to curriculum development. Because education
is a practical enterprise, the resolution of educational problems can only take
place by adopting a course of action and this action cannot exist outside the
practitioners history, beliefs and values. To help practitioners understand
what course of action to take, it was essential to have a research approach
that would help illuminate the personal complexities of their own situation.
The clear reflective rationality of action research enables it to do that.

3 Reaching a definition of action research
Hollingsworth et al. (1997) begin the concluding chapter of Hollingsworths
(1997) review of international action research projects with the somewhat
alarming statement that:
If there is one single pattern that emerges from these chapters, it is that the
forms, purposes, methods and results of action research around the world
differ widely.
(Hollingsworth et al., 1997, p.312)
This situation is widely acknowledged. Carr (1989), commenting on the
widely differing examples collated in Hustler et al. (1986), pointed to the
diversity of understanding that was developing throughout the eighties,
and the position is still similar. Carr suggested at the time that action
research now means different things to different people and, as a result, the
action research movement often appears to be held together by little more
than a common contempt for academic theorising and a general
disenchantment with mainstream research. (p.85).
Early work in action research by Lewin with regard to group dynamics
(Lewin, 1948) raised the idea that social practices could only be
understood and changed by involving the practitioners themselves
throughout an inquiry. The aim of the practitioner research, however, was
to solve a problem already identified from the outside. McKernan suggests
that Lewin considered action research to be a form of rational management
or social engineering (McKernan, 1991, p.18). In common with
contemporaries who began to apply action research to education (Corey,
1953; Taba, 1962), Lewin advocated a tightly controlled systematic
methodology, based on evidence and evaluation. The aim was social or
curriculum improvement, with the process driven by a goal determined at
the outset which could be redefined so that it remained appropriate.
Action research in education declined in the sixties, when a top-down,
research, development and dissemination (RD&D) model pervaded the
educational establishment. It reappeared in the seventies and became linked
with the idea of teacher as researcher advocated by Stenhouse
(Stenhouse 1975). The aim of the research now moved from the technical,
goal-oriented, end of achieving a practice that worked, to a more general
practical aim of understanding what made the practice what it was. But
with this different perspective, a number of different conceptions of the
purpose and nature of the process appeared, obscuring a clear definition.
Some writers, for example Carr and Kemmis (1986) and Elliott (1991) have
chosen to represent action research as a number of clearly distinct
processes, linked in some kind of hierarchy of effectiveness. Their
justification for a hierarchy resides around either the level of collaborative
activity or the mode of analysis used. Elliott distinguishes between isolated
and what he sees as the necessarily collaborative educational action
research, claiming that when teachers reflect in isolation from each other
they are likely to reduce action research to a form of technical rationality
aimed at improving their technical skills (Elliott 1991, p.55). What he calls
educational action research is, he claims, concerned more with the process
of inquiry than its products and is empowering, enabling teachers to critique
the curriculum structures which shape their practices and the power to
negotiate change within the system that maintains them (p.55). The aim of
action research for Elliott is to promote a teachers practical wisdom (Elliott,
1989) and can be thought of as a moral science in which the aim is to
realise moral values in practice.
Carr and Kemmis also suggest that action research can be differentiated into
three clearly distinct types:technical, practical and emancipatory.
They draw parallels between these types and general modes of inquiry in the
social sciences, claiming that they relate to three general forms that the
human and social sciences can take (empirical, interpretive, critical) (Carr,
1985, p.6, in Whitehead and Lomax (1987) p.178)) and that they represent
the three knowledge-constitutive interests identified by Habermas
(Habermas 1972). Within these interests, the supposed objectivity of the
positivist (scientific) paradigm actually conceals a technical need for
prediction and control. In contrast, interpretative social science has the
practical interest of understanding why a situation is as it is and how
effective communication is promoted within it, but it works at the level of
subjective understandings. Only a reflexive, critical, stance which exposes
the context within which subjective understandings are formed, will serve
the emancipatory interests of people by freeing them from the dictates of
compulsions of tradition, precedent, habit, coercion, as well as self-
deception (Grundy and Kemmis, 1982, p. 16, in Wallace, (1987) p.108).
According to Carr and Kemmis, such emancipatory action research is, like
Elliotts educational process, necessarily collaborative.
Carr, Kemmis and Elliott leave little doubt as to which kind of action
research they value most. But they are not without critics. Whitehead and
Lomax (1987) objected strongly to the proposal that action research could
be subsumed by traditionally competing social science paradigms (p.178),
claiming that, educational action research is an educational way of
understanding education, with its own distinctive educational values
underpinning it. (p.178). Whiteheads conception of action research locates
the heart of the process very firmly with the individual, proposing that each
participant is involved in the formation of her own living theory
(Whitehead 1985) out of the dialectical reality of her practice.
Jennings and Graham (1996) emphasise the individual perspective further
by applying a postmodern critique to the framework of technical, practical
and empowering action research. Locating their argument in the work of
Foucault (1980) and Lyotard (1984), they reject the notion of emancipation
as defined in critical action research, suggesting that the postmodern
interpretation of the relationship between truth and power means that
knowledge is based on nothing more than a number of diverse discourses,
each with its own rules and structures, with no discourse being privileged
(Jennings and Graham, 1996, p. 273). They suggest that whilst there has
been a concern among educators to define action research in more precise
terms, it is possible that a static definition is neither feasible nor
appropriate in a postmodern world (p.276).

4 A 'bottom line'
Although there are many characterisations of the process of action research,
there can be seen to be certain common elements within them. These
common elements can be thought of as constituting a bottom line in any
definition of action research:
Action research is about teachers striving to understand and to
improve their practice. At the bottom line, this operates at a personal
level. It may lead on to collaboration and a critique of the situation in
which the practice is carried out, but this does not have to be a
fundamental aim.
Action research proceeds through a process of planning, action and
reflection upon action. This can be thought of as an action-reflection
cycle.
Action research involves the gathering of evidence about practice.
Action research involves teachers trying to see the effects of planned
change in their practice.
Action research strives to be systematic and rigorous.
Analysis and knowledge formation in action research belong to the
practitioner.

Back to Top

PART THREE

DOING ACTION RESEARCH
1 Starting
Some key questions:
Barrett and Whitehead (1985) ask six questions which should help you start
your inquiry:
1. What is your concern?
2. Why are you concerned?
3. What do you think you could do about it?
4. What kind of evidence could you collect to help you make some
judgement about what is happening?
5. How would you collect such evidence?
6. How would you check that your judgement about what has happened
is reasonable, fair and accurate?
What can I investigate through action research?
Action research can be used to investigate practical, everyday issues:
Action research investigates everyday problems experienced by
teachers (Elliott, 1981).
All you need is a general idea that something might be improved
(Kemmis and McTaggart , 1982).
I experience a problem when some of my educational values are
negated in my practice (Whitehead 1985).
Starting points might be of the following kinds:
1. I want to get better at my science teaching
2. Im not sure why my students dont engage in discussion
3. I have to implement the speaking and listening guidelines, but Im not
sure what is the best way
4. How can we make staff meetings more productive?.
5. Ive seen something working well in school X; I wonder if it would
work for me?
6. Is there anything we can do about our poor take-up of A level
mathematics?
7. How can I promote more use of computers in the Humanities?
8. I wonder if Im too focused on recording with my six year olds?
It is important to choose an area that you can do something about. Some
questions are not amenable to action research:
Is there any relationship between single-parent families and
attendance?
Are tall children better at pole-vaulting?
Does ethnicity affect performance in SATs?
Remember that it is the strategic action (Kemmis and McTaggart 1982) that
you can employ to try to solve the problem that will give you the insights
into the factors affecting your practice.
Jot down some preliminary ideas regarding possibilities for an action
research project relating to your own practice.
Highlight those which might be the most feasible.



2 Focusing on a topic
Golden rules for selecting a topic
Keep it manageable keep the focus small scale.
It should be interesting to you you may need some perseverance to
see the inquiry through!
It should be workable you are not stumped for ideas, but can
identify ways in which you might have a go at addressing your
question.
It is not too disruptive of normal routines. (Important here to think not
just of your own, but others that your actions might affect).
Reconnaissance
Once you have mapped out the general area of concern, you will need to
focus specifically on something you can do something about. There may be
many potential starting points within your inquiry; in a way, it doesnt
matter where you start, as long as you consider that the action may be
beneficial. In order to get to this point, however, you may need to spend
sometime looking at your practice in a little detail, noting the various
aspects which might be changed. This period of focusing is known as
reconnaissance.
Writing
During this time, you may also employ other strategies to help you refine
your focus. Winter (1989) suggests a range of writing strategies that may
help you:
brainstorming ideas looking for patterns, recurring ideas;
keeping an interest log/diary;
writing a letter about your concern to someone (no need to post it!);
writing a story about the situation stories are a reflexive statement,
in which you may express ambiguities and contradictions (they will
need analysing this is best done in the presence of a critical friend
see below).
Whichever method you employ, writing is frequently the most powerful way
for helping you make sense of a situation. It allows you to work through
ideas and explore possibilities and maybes.
Remember, the point of all of this is to help you clarify the issue and decide
what your first change in action is going to be.

Practise Winter's technique. Write a letter to someone (real or
imaginary) about a specific issue. Analyse your writing for patterns in
the way you express the issue, ambiguities in what you say or
concerns that you raise. Make a separate note of these.
Do they help you to focus your thinking?

A critical friend
It helps to talk over the issue with a critical friend: someone who can help
you focus without giving you answers of his / her own. If someone agrees to
act as your critical friend, it is worth spending a little time at the beginning
of the relationship to work out how you will work together. Being a critical
friend is a commitment and a responsibility; it is not an excuse for a
colleague to give you their fourpennorth. Some key rules for the critical
friend which might prove helpful:
Try only to pose questions; dont give accounts of similar experiences.
Dont make critical remarks that will put pressure on your colleague to
defend him/herself. The critical element in critical friendship should lie
in the action researcher, not you!
Dont offer your own solutions to the problem. It is for the researcher
to work these out for him/herself.
Ask for concrete experiences and examples to help illustrate a
problem.
Ask for reasons and motives for actions.
Widen the discussion by asking if other possible factors not analysed
yet might be of influence.
(after Ainscow and Conner, 1990)

3 Planning what you will do
Your reconnaissance and your critical friend will help you to focus on an
issue. Once you have done this, you will need to plan how you are going to
carry out the inquiry. This planning will also help you refine what youre
looking at. Some further key questions to ask yourself:
Can anyone help provide the relevant information / data for your
inquiry?
To whom or what do you need access?
Is it feasible to get this access?
How much time do you have?
How will you divide up the time that you have?

Strategic action
Once you have answered all these questions, you will be in a position to
decide on what action you are going to take as a first stab at tackling your
concern. Dont worry about this action many people feel concerned about
getting their action right, trying to solve their problem immediately. The
result is that they become frozen, not able to act at all! All that matters is
that you try to do something that might help you in that situation. It should
be strategic action - action towards an identified end - but there is no way
of knowing whether it will be right before you carry it out. The likelihood is
that it will address some aspects of the problem, but that it will raise other
issues you hadnt anticipated.
Remember: This is the whole point! This is when the action becomes
part of research itself. So just have a go!
McNiff (1988, p 27) gives an example using the model proposed by Kemmis
and McTaggart (1982) to illustrate this aspect:

4 Monitoring
However, you cant be too cavalier about it you have to anticipate how you
will gather information regarding the impact of your action. As we saw in
Part One, you should plan to use more than one means of data gathering to
ensure triangulation. This can be difficult in a busy classroom, so be realistic.
Again, as you start to explore different methods of data gathering, you will
become more familiar with them and be able to use them more efficiently.
Practice doesnt make perfect, but it certainly helps! Remember that some
data can be gathered after the event, through, for example, interview or
questionnaire; you dont have to gather everything as you are acting.
Choosing methods
We have already identified that action researchers can use any method of
data gathering, as long as they think it will give them useful and reliable
evidence of the impact of their action (see Part One). Some important
considerations to bear in mind:
Does the method give a form of data which relates to my question?
Is it feasible in the available time?
Have I made myself aware of its strengths and limitations?
Will it be an acceptable method for the other people involved?
Will it disrupt normal routines? (If the data gathering method presents
as much change as the planned action, then how will I know what is
having an effect?!)
Ethical considerations
Any research which involves other people in some way has ethical
implications. Action research in education is deeply embedded in the social
world of the school or college within which it takes place. Because education
is a social action, data gathering and analysis within action research will
inevitably impact on the lives of others in those institutions, be they pupils,
students or colleagues. The University of Plymouth produces guidelines for
research involving human participants (click here to see them) and everyone
organising such research is required to complete an ethical protocol.
Although you may protest that your action research is focused merely on the
social world of your own classroom, the open, fluid nature of the research
process makes it important that you produce a protocol that will apply to
any situation that may arise. In any case, remember that the children or
students in your class are worthy of the same consideration as adults and
fellow professionals. The object of the protocol is to ensure individual rights
are not infringed and to promote fairness in the interpretation of data.
5 Analysis
Analysis in action research is the spur to reflection and the planning of new
action. Analysis within action research is about possibilities, not certainties.
It is not about why things have to be as they are, but rather what
possibilities for change lie within a situation. Action within a complex social
world is not static; it is dynamic and forever evolving.
In analysing your action research, you need to adopt an approach which can
help uncover this dynamic nature. To understand his or her practice, an
action researcher should strive to uncover the elements that constitute it;
elements which may be in harmony or in contradiction. Action researchers
need to look at their practice dialectically.
Perhaps the most lucid overview of dialectics and its application to analysis
within action research is provided by Winter (1989, pp 46-55). I strongly
urge you to read this. Dialectics represents both a theory of reality itself
and a way of understanding it. Within a dialectical perspective, nothing
stands alone; there is no such thing as a simple unity. Any phenomenon, be
it an object, a person, a practice or a social situation, is only understood by
taking account of the sets of relationships which comprise it: the relationship
between the elements of which the phenomenon is constituted and the
relationship between the phenomenon and the context within which it exists.
At the heart of this perspective, therefore, lies a contradiction: a
phenomenon is a thing, yet it is also many things. A book is a book, yet it is
also made up of words, paper, pages and cover and it gains meaning as a
book because it is a book amongst other books of the same kind, within the
milieu of ideas which inform them. A class is an entity, yet it is made of a
teacher and individual children and it lies within a school and the political
structures which govern them.
The word dialectics comes from a Greek root meaning the art of discussion.
To understand a phenomenon dialectically involves the exploration of these
relationships. The elements are interdependent in that they form the unity of
the phenomenon, but individually they are different and thus potentially in
opposition. The teacher teaches her class in the school, but the childrens
interests will be different from hers and her educational values may clash
with those of school policy. There are contradictions within the unity of the
phenomenon of her teaching. Because of these contradictions, her teaching
has the continual potential for change. Analysing her teaching dialectically
will help to highlight those contradictions and suggest from among the great
number that can be identified those relationships which might be significant.
Progress in action research can be seen to depend on this kind of analysis.
In striving to understand her teaching, the teacher will need to explore the
elements which constitute it. Action, reflection and planning proceed through
the teacher identifying the contradictory aspects that may be preventing her
from achieving what she wants in her teaching. The analysis will feed into
new (hopefully improved) teaching and it will also feed into an
understanding of why her teaching is as it is. Ideas and action are not
separate, they are both constitutive elements of the phenomenon of her
teaching. Action research should promote analysis which determines
whether they are in accord with each other or whether there is contradiction
between them. A propositional representation of theory and practice, as if
they exist as separate unities, fails to reflect this essentially dynamic
relationship between the two. Theory is practice, for understanding is one
element that makes the teachers action what it is.

To summarise a dialectical approach to analysis:
When considering a phenomenon dialectically, we identify within it the set of
relationships which define it, rather than trying to think of it as a single
entity. These are:
a. the set of relationships which relate the phenomenon to the context
within which it has its form - a little like the concentric rings of an
onion;
b. the set of relationships between the elements of which the
phenomenon consists - how it is one and many at the same time;
Dialectics therefore proposes:
a phenomenon is a set of relations which are different (contradictory)
and interdependent (forming a unity);
this leads to an instability which gives it an inherent tendency to
change.
A dialectical analysis seeks to identify these different elements within
practice and look for those aspects where the contradictory elements might
threaten the stability of the whole. For example, children's attitudes to each
other might threaten your class groupings or the cohesion of your teaching
may be threatened by the newly imposed modular structure of the
programme within which you have to work. No matter how much you try to
get your teaching 'right', it won't feel right unless you take these other
aspects into consideration. With each new action you take, you will be
exploring both how your existing problem or question can be resolved but
also understanding a little more about your practice. Again, McNiff's
representation gives a good idea of what this might feel like (see above).

Back to Top

PART FOUR
LIMITATIONS AND CRITICISMS OF ACTION RESEARCH

After reflecting on the first three parts of this component, in what
ways might one criticise the process of action research?

Some thoughts:
1 Lack of time
Action researchers work in the hurly burly of their own practice. Monitoring
closely this practice as they are acting within it demands space and time
which, almost by definition, the practice does not give easily. It is therefore
difficult to maintain rigour in data gathering and critique.

2 Validity as research
Action research is carried out by individuals who are interested parties in the
research. This fact has led to criticisms of the validity of the research
process, with accusations of inevitable researcher bias in data gathering and
analysis. The justification for action research counters this criticism by
suggesting that it is impossible to access practice without involving the
practitioner. Practice is action informed by values and aims which are not
fully accessible from the outside. The practitioner may not even be wholly
aware of the meaning of his or her values until he or she tries to embody
them in her action.

3 Unfamiliarity with research methods
Action researchers frequently explore what may constitute adequate
research methods at the same time as they are researching their practice.
This kind of 'on the job' training and consequent ad hoc planning, has led to
accusations of unreliability in data gathering. To some extent, this
unreliability is inevitable, but the notion only makes sense in the presence of
verifiably reliable data gathering. From this perspective, action research
would claim that, flawed or not, the process provides the most reliable
access to practice.
Action researchers draw attention to the notion of commitment. An action
researcher must be committed to rigorous examination and critique of his or
her practice. Carr and Kemmis (1986) liken this conceptualisation of
commitment to the Aristotelian notion of phronesis - 'the disposition to act
truly and rightly'. This is the only fixed element, all else might change.
Action researchers should involve outsiders (for example a critical friend) in
the analysis of their data, but it is the degree to which action researchers
are committed to this critical analysis of their practice that provides the true
measure of reliability in data gathering.
This, however, is a difficult principle. Commitment cannot be measured
easily and the process will continue to be criticised because of this. How do
we know that an action researcher's analysis is rigorous enough?

Close examination of this issue raises very profound epistemological
questions regarding the nature of knowledge itself. Is there such a
thing as objective knowledge of practice, or is it always an individual's
personal construct?
Record your thoughts.

4 Action research produces results which are not generalisable
This is true, but someone else's ideas or conclusions can always be tried out
by other persons in their own practice, to see if they work for them (c.f.
Hamilton (1981) in Part One).

5 Representations of the process of action research may confuse,
rather than enlighten
The range of visual diagrams of the action research process are of varying
complexity and, perhaps, not always helpful:
They can give a false sense of regularity to the teacher. McNiff (1988)
has pointed out that action research is a messy process (see above),
with forays into territory only partially related to the main focus of
study, aborted lines of inquiry and continual refocusing. Hopkins
(1993) criticises the tight, orderly representations of Elliott, Ebbutt and
McKernan as having the potential to 'trap teachers within a framework
which they might come to depend on and which will, consequently,
inhibit independent action' (pp.54-55).
The representations may be unduly complex. Ebbutt (1985) criticised
Elliott's diagram as 'leading to mystification'.

6 The rhetoric of action research may be confusing, or in
contradiction with the main principles of the process.
A brief glance at Carr and Kemmis (1986) or Winter (1987) will show that
behind a straightforward strategy for professionals to examine systematically
the nature of their practice, there is an intense methodological and
epistemological debate. The fact that the outcome of this debate seems
always to show that action research is the 'right' way to research practice,
has been the subject of notable criticisms, both from outside and within. For
example:
Gibson (1985), in perhaps the most trenchant critique of the literature
of the time, suggested that action research tended towards the heavily
ironic situation of little self-critique. He raged against what he saw as
the hubris of Carr and Kemmis (1986), at one point likening the action
research movement to the Salvation Army.
Lewis (1987) criticised the tendency to prescribe to teachers, claiming
that he found little evidence of Carr and Kemmis' 'familiarity with the
practical world of teachers and the real problems which teachers face'
(p 100).
Whitehead and Lomax (1987) also criticised the level of prescription in
some elements of the literature. In particular, they attacked Elliott's,
along with Carr and Kemmis', categorisation of action research into
various kinds - technical, practical and emancipatory. These are
supposed to reflect the levels of involvement of participants, the
amount of critique possible and, consequently, the quality of the
knowledge derived from the process. For action research to be
emancipatory, the argument goes, it must, for a start, be
collaborative. Whitehead and Lomax (1987) claimed that this rhetoric
is far too prescriptive. A hierarchy of action research styles suggests
that it is possible to judge the quality of teachers' research even
before it has taken place. This criticism has also been made by
Somekh (1988). (It is worth suggesting, however, that Whitehead and
Lomax might also have seen their model of action research as the
right one.)
Zeichner (1993) sums up the relevance of these distinctions and
debates to teachers thus:
When I use the term 'action research', I am using it in a very broad sense as
a systematic inquiry by practitioners about their own practices. There has
been a lot of debate in the literature about what is and is not real action
research, about the specifics of the action research spiral, about whether
action research must be collaborative or not, about whether it can or should
involve outsiders as well as insiders, and so on...a lot of this discourse,
although highly informative in an academic sense, is essentially irrelevant to
many of those who actually engage in action research
There are many different cultures of action research and it seems to me that
an awful lot of time and energy is wasted in arguing over who are the 'real'
action researchers and who are the imposters
(pp.200-201)

Back to Top




PART FIVE
TASKS
NB Only for those University of Plymouth students undertaking the
Research in Education module as part of the preparation for the
submission of a MA dissertation proposal
Tasks, once completed, should be sent to resined@plymouth.ac.uk, making clear:
which component it is from;
which task it is (B or C);
the name of your dissertation supervisor.
It will then be passed on to the component leader (and copied to your supervisor). The
component leader will get back to you with comments and advice which we hope will be
educative and which will help you in preparing your dissertation proposal once you are ready.
(Remember that these tasks are formative and that it is the proposal which forms the summative
assessment for the MERS501 (resined) module.) This email address is checked daily so please
use it for all correspondence about RESINED other than that directed to particular individuals for
specific reasons.
TASK B (DATA COLLECTION)
From an identified 'action', plan how you are going to monitor the
effects of your change in practice. Consider how you will ensure that
you are rigorous in your approach. See the discussion above (Part
One and Part Three) and consult the recommended texts (see below).

TASK C (DATA ANALYSIS)
Conduct a dialectical analysis (see Winter 1989 and parts Two and
Three above) on a practice-related issue deriving from your experience
or your study.
FURTHER QUESTIONS THAT YOU MIGHT WANT TO CONSIDER IN
RELATION THE NATURE OF ACTION RESEARCH
Is action research really 'research'?
Discuss with reference to the points made above (see Part Two and Part
Four) and to recommended texts (see below), especially Gibson (1985). I
suggest you have a look at the articles in the journal Educational Action
Research, which is available electronically via the University of Plymouth
portal. A free sample copy can be obtained at:
http://www.tandf.co.uk/journals/titles/09650792.asp
In particular, see the article by Richard Winter, 'Managers, Spectators and
Citizens: where does theory come from in action research?' in Educational
Action Research Vol 6, No 3, 1998, which can be accessed by clicking here.

What counts as collaboration in action research?
Discuss with reference to your own experience and to Parts Two, Three
and Four above.

What counts as action research?
In the light of your reading of this component, view the Teachers TV video clip to be found at:
http://www.teachers.tv/video/4883 which purports to show examples of action research in
schools.
Consider the extent to which the examples shown in the clip constitute action research.

Back to Top








PART SIX
FURTHER READING

Books, book chapers & articles (those strongly recommended in bold)

Altricher, H., Posch, P. & Somekh, B. (1993) Teachers Investigate their
Work: An Introduction to the Methods of Action Research, London,
Routledge.
Carr, W. & Kemmis, S. (1986) Becoming Critical: education,
knowledge and action research. Lewes, Falmer.
Cohen, L ; Manion, L & Morrison, K (2000) Research Methods in Education
(5th edition), London, RoutledgeFalmer
Corey, S. (1953) Action Research to Improve School Practices. New York,
Columbia University, Teachers College Press.
Ebbutt, D. (1985) Educational Action research: some general concerns and
specific quibbles, in: Burgess, R. (ed.) Issues in Educational Research:
qualitative methods. Lewes, Falmer.
Elliott, J. (1981) Action research: a framework for self-evaluation in schools.
TIQL working paper no.1., Cambridge, Cambridge Institute of Education.
Elliott, J. (1991) Action Research for Educational Change,
Buckingham, Open University Press.
Foucault, M. (1980) Power/Knowledge. Brighton, Harvester.
Gibson, R. (1985) Critical times for action research. Cambridge Journal of
Education, 15 (1): 59-64.
Hamilton, D. (1981) Generalization in the Educational Sciences: problems
and purposes. In: Popkewitz, T.S. and Tabachnik, B.R. (eds.) The Study of
Schooling: field based methodologies in educational research and evaluation,
New York, Praeger.
Hollingsworth, S. (ed.) (1997) International Action Research: a casebook for
educational reform. London, Falmer.
Hollingsworth, S., Noffke, S.E., Walker, M. & Winter, R. (1997) Epilogue:
What have we learned from these case on action research and educational
reform? in: Hollingsworth, S. (ed.) International Action Research: a
casebook for educational reform, London, Falmer.
Hopkins, D. (1993) A Teachers Guide to Classroom Research, 2nd edition,
Milton Keynes, Open University Press.
Hustler, D., Cassidy, A. & Cuff, E. (eds.) (1986) Action Research in
Classrooms and Schools, London, Allen and Unwin.
Jennings, L. & Graham, A. (1996) Postmodern perspectives and action
research: reflecting on the possibilities. Educational Action Research, 4 (2):
267-278.
Kemmis, S. & McTaggart, R. (1982) The Action Research Planner. Victoria,
Deakin University Press.
Koshy, V. (2005) Action research for improving practice. A practical guide.
London: Paul Chapman Publishing.
Lewin, K. (1948) Resolving Social Conflicts. New York, Harper.
Lewis, I. (1987) Encouraging reflexive teacher research. British Journal of
Sociology of Education, 8 (1): 95-105.
Lyotard, J.F. (1984) The Postmodern Condition: a report on knowledge.
Manchester, Manchester University Press.
McKernan (1991) Curriculum Action research: a handbook of methods and
resources for the reflective practitioner. London, Kogan Page.
McNiff, J. (1988) Action Research: Principles and Practice,
Basingstoke, Macmillan.
Schn, D. (1983) The Reflective Practitioner: How Professionals Think in
Action. New York, Basic Books.
Somekh, B. (1988) The role of action research in collaborative inquiry and
school improvement. Paper to CARN conference, Cambridge, 25-27 March.
Stenhouse, L. (1975) An Introduction to Curriculum Research and
Development. London, Heinemann.
Taba, H. (1962) Curriculum Development: theory and practice. New York,
Harcourt, Brace and World.
Wallace, M. (1987) A historial review of action research: some implications
for the education of teachers in their managerial role. Journal of Education
for Teaching, 13 (2): 97-115
Whitehead, J. (1985) An Analysis of an Individuals Educational
Development: the basis for personally oriented action research, in:
Shipman, M. (ed.) Educational Research: principles, policies and
practices, Lewes, Falmer.
Whitehead, J. (1989) Creating a living educational theory from questions of
the kind How do I improve my practice? Cambridge Journal of Education,
19 (1): 41-52
Whitehead, J. & Lomax, P. (1987) Action research and the politics of
educational knowledge. British Educational Research Journal, 13 (2): 175-
190.
Winter, R. (1987) Action Research and the Nature of Social Inquiry.
Aldershot, Gower.
Winter, R. (1989) Learning from Experience: principles and practice in action
research. Lewes, Falmer.
Woods, P. (1996) Researching the Art of Teaching: ethnography for
educational use. London, Routledge.
Zeichner, K.M. (1993) Action research: personal renewal and social
reconstruction. Educational Action Research, 1 (2): 199-219.

Websites

http://www.open.ac.uk/cobe/docs/AR-Guide-final.pdf
This site presents training material for Open University Associate Lecturers.
It deals with key theoretical and practical aspects of action research and
would be particularly useful for tutors in FE or HE who were thinking of
undertaking research into their own practice. There are examples of past
projects, highlighting procedural stages and outcomes.

http://www.bath.ac.uk/~edsajw/
Jack Whitehead's website at Bath University. Contains much information
regarding the process of action research, along with a selection of extracts
from theses that have used action research as their methodology.

http://www.did.stu.mmu.ac.uk/carn/
The Collaborative Action Research Network site at Manchester Metropolitan
University. A vast amount of information about action research in
education. Follows the developmental work in the Ford Teaching Project
(1976), pioneered by Lawrence Stenhouse. Also has conference
proceedings, publications, newsletters and links to other sites.

http://www.tandf.co.uk/journals/titles/09650792.asp
The website for the journal Educational Action Research. Now nearly ten
years old, the journal contains written accounts of a wide range of action
research projects, as well as theoretical debate.










Guiding School Improvement with Action Research
by Richard Sagor
Table of Contents
Chapter 1. What Is Action Research?
A succinct definition of action research appears in the workshop materials we use at the Institute
for the Study of Inquiry in Education. That definition states that action research
is a disciplined process of inquiry conducted by and for those taking the action. The primary reason for
engaging in action research is to assist the actor in improving and/or refining his or her actions.
Practitioners who engage in action research inevitably find it to be an empowering experience.
Action research has this positive effect for many reasons. Obviously, the most important is that
action research is always relevant to the participants. Relevance is guaranteed because the focus
of each research project is determined by the researchers, who are also the primary consumers of
the findings.
Perhaps even more important is the fact that action research helps educators be more effective at
what they care most abouttheir teaching and the development of their students. Seeing students
grow is probably the greatest joy educators can experience. When teachers have convincing
evidence that their work has made a real difference in their students' lives, the countless hours
and endless efforts of teaching seem worthwhile.
The Action Research Process
Educational action research can be engaged in by a single teacher, by a group of colleagues who
share an interest in a common problem, or by the entire faculty of a school. Whatever the
scenario, action research always involves the same seven-step process. These seven steps, which
become an endless cycle for the inquiring teacher, are the following:
1. Selecting a focus
2. Clarifying theories
3. Identifying research questions
4. Collecting data
5. Analyzing data
6. Reporting results
7. Taking informed action
Step 1Selecting a Focus
The action research process begins with serious reflection directed toward identifying a topic or
topics worthy of a busy teacher's time. Considering the incredible demands on today's classroom
teachers, no activity is worth doing unless it promises to make the central part of a teacher's work
more successful and satisfying. Thus, selecting a focus, the first step in the process, is vitally
important. Selecting a focus begins with the teacher researcher or the team of action researchers
asking:
What element(s) of our practice or what aspect of student learning do we wish to investigate?
Step 2Clarifying Theories
The second step involves identifying the values, beliefs, and theoretical perspectives the
researchers hold relating to their focus. For example, if teachers are concerned about increasing
responsible classroom behavior, it will be helpful for them to begin by clarifying which
approachusing punishments and rewards, allowing students to experience the natural
consequences of their behaviors, or some other strategythey feel will work best in helping
students acquire responsible classroom behavior habits.
Step 3Identifying Research Questions
Once a focus area has been selected and the researcher's perspectives and beliefs about that focus
have been clarified, the next step is to generate a set of personally meaningful research questions
to guide the inquiry.
Step 4Collecting Data
Professional educators always want their instructional decisions to be based on the best possible
data. Action researchers can accomplish this by making sure that the data used to justify their
actions are valid (meaning the information represents what the researchers say it does) and
reliable (meaning the researchers are confident about the accuracy of their data). Lastly, before
data are used to make teaching decisions, teachers must be confident that the lessons drawn from
the data align with any unique characteristics of their classroom or school.
To ensure reasonable validity and reliability, action researchers should avoid relying on any
single source of data. Most teacher researchers use a process called triangulation to enhance the
validity and reliability of their findings. Basically, triangulation means using multiple
independent sources of data to answer one's questions. Triangulation is like studying an object
located inside a box by viewing it through various windows cut into the sides of the box.
Observing a phenomenon through multiple windows can help a single researcher compare and
contrast what is being seen through a variety of lenses.
When planning instruction, teachers want the techniques they choose to be appropriate for the
unique qualities of their students. All teachers have had the experience of implementing a
research-proven strategy only to have it fail with their students. The desire of teachers to use
approaches that fit their particular students is not dissimilar to a doctor's concern that the
specific medicine being prescribed be the correct one for the individual patient. The ability of the
action research process to satisfy an educator's need for fit may be its most powerful attribute.
Because the data being collected come from the very students and teachers who are engaged with
the treatment, the relevance of the findings is assured.
For the harried and overworked teacher, data collection can appear to be the most intimidating
aspect of the entire seven-step action research process. The question I am repeatedly asked,
Where will I find the time and expertise to develop valid and reliable instruments for data
collection?, gives voice to a realistic fear regarding time management. Fortunately, classrooms
and schools are, by their nature, data-rich environments. Each day a child is in class, he or she is
producing or not producing work, is interacting productively with classmates or experiencing
difficulties in social situations, and is completing assignments proficiently or poorly. Teachers
not only see these events transpiring before their eyes, they generally record these events in their
grade books. The key to managing triangulated data collection is, first, to be effective and
efficient in collecting the material that is already swirling around the classroom, and, second, to
identify other sources of data that might be effectively surfaced with tests, classroom
discussions, or questionnaires.
Step 5Analyzing Data
Although data analysis often brings to mind the use of complex statistical calculations, this is
rarely the case for the action researcher. A number of relatively user-friendly procedures can
help a practitioner identify the trends and patterns in action research data. During this portion of
the seven-step process, teacher researchers will methodically sort, sift, rank, and examine their
data to answer two generic questions:
What is the story told by these data?
Why did the story play itself out this way?
By answering these two questions, the teacher researcher can acquire a better understanding of the
phenomenon under investigation and as a result can end up producing grounded theory regarding what
might be done to improve the situation.
Step 6Reporting Results
It is often said that teaching is a lonely endeavor. It is doubly sad that so many teachers are left
alone in their classrooms to reinvent the wheel on a daily basis. The loneliness of teaching is
unfortunate not only because of its inefficiency, but also because when dealing with complex
problems the wisdom of several minds is inevitably better than one.
The sad history of teacher isolation may explain why the very act of reporting on their action
research has proven so powerful for both the researchers and their colleagues. The reporting of
action research most often occurs in informal settings that are far less intimidating than the
venues where scholarly research has traditionally been shared. Faculty meetings, brown bag
lunch seminars, and teacher conferences are among the most common venues for sharing action
research with peers. However, each year more and more teacher researchers are writing up their
work for publication or to help fulfill requirements in graduate programs. Regardless of which
venue or technique educators select for reporting on research, the simple knowledge that they are
making a contribution to a collective knowledge base regarding teaching and learning frequently
proves to be among the most rewarding aspects of this work.
Step 7Taking Informed Action
Taking informed action, or action planning, the last step in the action research process, is very
familiar to most teachers. When teachers write lesson plans or develop academic programs, they
are engaged in the action planning process. What makes action planning particularly satisfying
for the teacher researcher is that with each piece of data uncovered (about teaching or student
learning) the educator will feel greater confidence in the wisdom of the next steps. Although all
teaching can be classified as trial and error, action researchers find that the research process
liberates them from continuously repeating their past mistakes. More important, with each
refinement of practice, action researchers gain valid and reliable data on their developing
virtuosity.
Three Purposes for Action Research
As stated earlier, action research can be engaged in by an individual teacher, a collaborative
group of colleagues sharing a common concern, or an entire school faculty. These three different
approaches to organizing for research serve three compatible, yet distinct, purposes:
Building the reflective practitioner
Making progress on schoolwide priorities
Building professional cultures
Building the Reflective Practitioner
When individual teachers make a personal commitment to systematically collect data on their
work, they are embarking on a process that will foster continuous growth and development.
When each lesson is looked on as an empirical investigation into factors affecting teaching and
learning and when reflections on the findings from each day's work inform the next day's
instruction, teachers can't help but develop greater mastery of the art and science of teaching. In
this way, the individual teachers conducting action research are making continuous progress in
developing their strengths as reflective practitioners.
Making Progress on Schoolwide Priorities
Increasingly, schools are focusing on strengthening themselves and their programs through the
development of common focuses and a strong sense of esprit de corps. Peters and Waterman
(1982) in their landmark book, In Search of Excellence, called the achievement of focus
sticking to the knitting. When a faculty shares a commitment to achieving excellence with a
specific focusfor example, the development of higher-order thinking, positive social behavior,
or higher standardized test scoresthen collaboratively studying their practice will not only
contribute to the achievement of the shared goal but would have a powerful impact on team
building and program development. Focusing the combined time, energy, and creativity of a
group of committed professionals on a single pedagogical issue will inevitably lead to program
improvements, as well as to the school becoming a center of excellence. As a result, when a
faculty chooses to focus on one issue and all the teachers elect to enthusiastically participate in
action research on that issue, significant progress on the schoolwide priorities cannot help but
occur.
Building Professional Cultures
Often an entire faculty will share a commitment to student development, yet the group finds
itself unable to adopt a single common focus for action research. This should not be viewed as
indicative of a problem. Just as the medical practitioners working at a quality medical center
will hold a shared vision of a healthy adult, it is common for all the faculty members at a school
to share a similar perspective on what constitutes a well-educated student. However, like the
doctors at the medical center, the teachers in a quality school may well differ on which specific
aspects of the shared vision they are most motivated to pursue at any point in time.
Schools whose faculties cannot agree on a single research focus can still use action research as a
tool to help transform themselves into a learning organization. They accomplish this in the same
manner as do the physicians at the medical center. It is common practice in a quality medical
center for physicians to engage in independent, even idiosyncratic, research agendas. However, it
is also common for medical researchers to share the findings obtained from their research with
colleagues (even those engaged in other specialties).
School faculties who wish to transform themselves into communities of learners often
empower teams of colleagues who share a passion about one aspect of teaching and learning to
conduct investigations into that area of interest and then share what they've learned with the rest
of the school community. This strategy allows an entire faculty to develop and practice the
discipline that Peter Senge (1990) labeled team learning. In these schools, multiple action
research inquiries occur simultaneously, and no one is held captive to another's priority, yet
everyone knows that all the work ultimately will be shared and will consequently contribute to
organizational learning.
Why Action Research Now?
If ever there were a time and a strategy that were right for each other, the time is now and the
strategy is action research! This is true for a host of reasons, with none more important than the
need to accomplish the following:
Professionalize teaching.
Enhance the motivation and efficacy of a weary faculty.
Meet the needs of an increasingly diverse student body.
Achieve success with standards-based reforms.

Professionalizing Teaching
Teaching in North America has evolved in a manner that makes it more like blue-collar work
than a professional undertaking. Although blue-collar workers are expected to do their jobs with
vigilance and vigor, it is also assumed that their tasks will be routine, straightforward, and,
therefore, easily handled by an isolated worker with only the occasional support of a supervisor.
Professional work, on the other hand, is expected to be complex and nonroutine, and will
generally require collaboration among practitioners to produce satisfactory results. With the
exploding knowledge base on teaching and learning and the heightened demands on teachers to
help all children achieve mastery of meaningful objectives, the inadequacy of the blue-collar
model for teaching is becoming much clearer.
When the teachers in a school begin conducting action research, their workplace begins to take
on more of the flavor of the workplaces of other professionals. The wisdom that informs practice
starts coming from those doing the work, not from supervisors who oftentimes are less in touch
with and less sensitive to the issues of teaching and learning than the teachers doing the work.
Furthermore, when teachers begin engaging their colleagues in discussions of classroom issues,
the multiple perspectives that emerge and thus frame the dialogue tend to produce wiser
professional decisions.
Enhancing Teacher Motivation and Efficacy
The work of teaching has always been difficult. But now it isn't just the demands of the
classroom that are wearing teachers down. Students increasingly bring more problems into the
classroom; parental and societal expectations keep increasing; and financial cutbacks make it
clear that today's teachers are being asked to do more with less. Worse still, the respect that
society had traditionally placed upon public school teachers is eroding, as teacher bashing and
attacks on the very value of a public education are becoming a regular part of the political
landscape. Consequently, teacher burnout has become the plague of the modern schoolhouse.
Many teachers now ask, Am I making any difference? Regardless of all the negative pressures
on teachers, the sheer nobility of the work keeps many dedicated educators on the job, but only
so long as they can get credible answers to the efficacy question. However, without credible
evidence that the work of teaching is making a difference, it is hard to imagine the best and
brightest sticking with such a difficult and poorly compensated line of work. Fortunately,
evidence has shown that teachers who elect to integrate the use of data into their work start
exhibiting the compulsive behavior of fitness enthusiasts who regularly weigh themselves, check
their heart rate, and graph data on their improving physical development. For both teachers and
athletes, the continuous presence of compelling data that their hard work is paying off becomes,
in itself, a vitally energizing force.
Meeting the Needs of a Diverse Student Body
In a homogeneous society in which all students come to school looking alike, it might be wise to
seek the one right answer to questions of pedagogy. But, as anyone who has recently visited an
American classroom can attest, it is rare to find any two children for whom the same intervention
could ever be right on target. The days are gone when it was possible to believe that all a
teacher had to do was master and deliver the grade-level curriculum. It is now imperative that
classroom teachers have strong content background in each of the subjects they teach, be familiar
with the range of student differences in their classrooms, and be capable of diagnosing and
prescribing appropriate instructional modifications based upon a knowledge of each child's
uniqueness.
Crafting solutions to these dynamic and ever changing classroom issues can be an exciting
undertaking, especially when one acknowledges that newer and better answers are evolving all
the time. Nevertheless, great personal satisfaction comes from playing a role in creating
successful solutions to continually changing puzzles. Conversely, if teachers are expected to
robotically implement outdated approaches, especially when countless new challenges are
arriving at their door, the frustration can become unbearable.
Achieving Success in a Standards-Based System
In most jurisdictions standards-driven accountability systems have become the norm. Although
they differ somewhat from state to state and province to province, fundamentally these
standards-based systems have certain things in common. Specifically, most education
departments and ministries have declared that they expect the standards to be rigorous and
meaningful, and that they expect all students to meet the standards at the mastery level.
The stakes in the standards movement are high. Students face consequences regarding promotion
and graduation. Teachers and schools face ridicule and loss of funding if they fail to meet
community expectations. Of course, none of that would be problematic if we as a society knew
with certainty how to achieve universal student success. However, the reality is that no large
system anywhere in the world has ever been successful in getting every student to master a set of
meaningful objectives. If we accept the truth of that statement, then we need to acknowledge the
fact that achieving the goal of universal student mastery will not be easy. That said, most people
will agree it is a most noble endeavor in which to invest energy and a worthy goal for any faculty
to pursue.
The reality is that our public schools will not prevail with the challenges inherent in the standards
movement unless they encourage experimentation, inquiry, and dialogue by those pioneers (the
teachers) who are working toward meeting those challenges. For this reason, it is imperative that
these 21st century pioneers, our classroom teachers, conduct the research on standards
attainment themselves.
So the time is right for action research. The teachers, schools, and school systems that seize this
opportunity and begin investing in the power of inquiry will find that they are re-creating the
professional practice of education in their locale as a meaningful and rewarding pursuit.
Conversely, school systems that enter the 21st century unwilling to invest in the wisdom of
practice will likely find it increasingly hard to fill their classrooms with enough teachers who
are both capable of and willing to tackle the challenges that lie ahead.
The importance of action research in teacher
education programs
Gregory S. C. Hine
The University of Notre Dame Australia
Email: gregory.hine@nd.edu.au
Following entry into the workforce, there are limited opportunities for new graduate teachers to engage
in critically reflective activities about their educative practice. In an increasingly complex and challenging
profession, the need for teachers, administrators and school systems to become involved in professional
development activities is ever present. Undertaking a unit in action research methodology provides
those professionals working in the education system with a systematic, reflective approach to address
areas of need within their respective domains. The University of Notre Dame Australia (Fremantle)
offers a core unit in action research methodology as part of its eight (8) unit Master of Education
degree.
This paper discusses the place of action research within a Master of Education degree, and within
the teaching profession. The approaches adopted by two tertiary institutions (one in the United
States, and one in Australia) to teach action research to educators are highlighted. More
specifically, the professional practice employed by one academic to teach the action research unit
within a Master's degree course is outlined. The author has taught the unit ED6765: Action
Research in Education for the past four years consecutively, and believes the skills and
knowledge developed as part of undertaking this unit are critically important within teacher
education and the teaching profession. Some examples of past action research projects designed
and implemented by students are also included.

Introduction to action research
Action research is a process of systematic inquiry that seeks to improve social issues affecting the lives
of everyday people (Bogdan & Bilken, 1992; Lewin, 1938; 1946; Stringer, 2008). Historically, the term
'action research' has been long associated with the work of Kurt Lewin, who viewed this research
methodology as cyclical, dynamic, and collaborative in nature. Through repeated cycles of planning,
observing, and reflecting, individuals and groups engaged in action research can implement changes
required for social improvement. To extend this notion, Kemmis and McTaggart (1988) view action
research as a collaborative process carried out by those with a shared concern. Moreover, these authors
suggest that action research is a
form of collective reflective enquiry undertaken by participants in social situations in order to improve
the rationality and justice of their own social or educational practices, as well as their understanding of
these practices and the situations in which these practices are carried out (Kemmis & McTaggart, p. 6).
The collaborative nature of action research is highlighted by other writers (Noffke, 1997; Reason &
Bradbury, 2011). While Noffke suggests that this research methodology lends itself effectively to a broad
range of beliefs and relationships - analogous to a family, Reason and Bradbury postulate that
collaborative efforts help develop practical ideas to assist with the pursuit of worthwhile human
purposes. Specifically, they contend that the participatory, democratic process of action research seeks
to
bring together action and reflection, theory and practice, in participation with others, in the pursuit of
practical solutions to issues of pressing concern to people, and more generally the flourishing of
individual persons and their communities (Reason & Bradbury, pp. 9-10).
Broadly speaking, action research enables researchers to develop a systematic, inquiring approach
toward their own practices (Frabutt et al., 2008) oriented towards effecting positive change in this
practice (Holter & Frabutt, 2012) or within a broader community (Mills, 2011).
Action research in education
Action research is an attractive option for teacher researchers, school administrative staff, and other
stakeholders in the teaching and learning environment to consider (Mills, 2011). Specifically, action
research in education can be defined as the process of studying a school situation to understand and
improve the quality of the educative process (Hensen, 1996; Johnson, 2012; McTaggart, 1997). It
provides practitioners with new knowledge and understanding about how to improve educational
practices or resolve significant problems in classrooms and schools (Mills; Stringer, 2008). Action
research uses a systematic process (Dinkelman, 1997; McNiff, Lomax, & Whitehead, 1996), is
participatory in nature (Holter & Frabutt, 2012), and offers multiple, beneficial opportunities for those
professionals working within the teaching profession (Johnson; McTaggart; Schmuck, 1997). These
opportunities include facilitating the professional development of educators (Barone et al., 1996),
increasing teacher empowerment (Book, 1996; Fueyo & Koorland, 1997; Hensen), and bridging the gap
between research and practice (Johnson; Mills). These opportunities will be explored below.
Within education the main goal of action research is to determine ways to enhance the lives of
children (Mills, 2011). At the same time, action research can enhance the lives of those
professionals who work within educational systems. To illustrate, action research has been
directly linked to the professional growth and development of teachers (Hensen, 1996; Osterman
& Kottkamp, 1993; Tomlinson, 1995). According to Hensen, action research (a) helps teachers
develop new knowledge directly related to their classrooms, (b) promotes reflective teaching and
thinking, (c) expands teachers' pedagogical repertoire, (d) puts teachers in charge of their craft,
(e) reinforces the link between practice and student achievement, (f) fosters an openness toward
new ideas and learning new things, and (g) gives teachers ownership of effective practices.
Moreover, action research workshops can be used to replace traditional, ineffective teacher
inservice training (Barone et al., 1996) as a means for professional development activities
(Johnson, 2012). To be effective, teacher inservice training needs to be
extended over multiple sessions, contain active learning to allow teachers to manipulate the ideas and
enhance their assimilation of the information, and align the concepts presented with the current
curriculum, goals, or teaching concerns. (Johnson, p. 22).
Therefore, providing teachers with the necessary skills, knowledge, and focus to engage in meaningful
inquiry about their professional practice will enhance this practice, and effect positive changes
concerning the educative goals of the learning community.
As a corollary to the professional growth opportunities offered to educators, action research also
facilitates teacher empowerment (Johnson, 2012). In particular, teachers are empowered when
they are able to collect and use data in making informed decisions about their own schools and
classrooms (Book, 1996; Fueyo & Koorland, 1997; Hensen, 1996). Within the classroom,
empowered teachers can implement practices that best meet the needs of their students, and
complement their particular teaching philosophy and instructional style (Johnson). In exercising
their individual talents, experiences and creative ideas within the classroom, teachers are
empowered to make changes related to teaching and learning. By doing so, student achievement
is enhanced (Marks & Louis, 1997; Sweetland & Hoy, 2002), and schools become more
effective learning communities (Detert, Louis, & Schroeder, 2001).
Johnson (2012) asserts that action research bridges the gap between research and practice. For
instance, the theoretical components underpinning action research practice are used to help
practitioners understand and observe what is happening in a classroom setting. At the same time,
and with the interests of best practice in mind, these collected data "are used to understand or
inform theories and research related to best practice" (Johnson, p. 20). In a similar vein to the
enhancement of the professional disposition of teachers, action research encourages teachers to
become continuous learners within their classrooms and schools (Mills, 2011). Because of the
professional, reflective stance required by practitioners engaged in the action research sequence,
teachers are further encouraged to "examine the dynamics of their classrooms, ponder the actions
and interactions of students, validate and challenge existing practices, and take risks in the
process" (Mills, p. 46). These specific actions are similar to those regularly exercised by teachers
on a daily basis; using a systematic, strategic action research plan provides those daily actions
with increased structure, focus, and methodological rigour.
The process of action research
Many guidelines and models of action research are available to teachers wishing to engage in this
research methodology. For instance, action research has been described as a 'spiralling', cyclical process
(Lewin, 1952; Kemmis, 1988), as a research 'cycle' (Calhoun, 1994; Wells, 1994), and as a helix (Stringer,
2004). In this paper, the author has included the action research helix (Stringer, p. 4); - commonly
referred to as the "Look, Act, Think" model - as Figure 1 (see below). This model is used by the author to
introduce the key processes of action research to students in ED6765: Action Research in Education. In
the 'Look' stage, information is gathered by careful observation through looking, listening, and
recording. During the 'Think' stage, researchers analyse the collected information to identify significant
features and elements of the phenomenon being studied. Finally, the 'Act' stage is where the newly
formulated information is used to devise solutions to the issue being investigated.
Figure 1: Action research helix (adapted from Stringer, 2004, p. 4)
To expand the key processes found in Figure 1, the author uses the Action Research Cycle, found
in Figure 2 (see below). In Figure 2, the Action Research Cycle broadens the Action Research
Helix (see Figure 1) into five key steps: Designing the Study, Collecting Data, Analysing Data,
Communicating Outcomes, Taking Action. According to Stringer (2008), this cycle is a common
process of action research inquiry. When designing the study, researchers carefully refine the
issue to be investigated, plan systematic processes of inquiry, and check the ethics and validity of
the work. The second stage of the research cycle is where the researcher collects information
from a variety of sources about the phenomenon of interest. Next, this information is analysed to
identify key features of the issue under investigation. During the communication stage, the
outcomes of the study are made known to relevant audiences through the use of appropriate
media or fora. Finally, and of critical importance to the action research cycle, the researcher
takes action by using the outcomes of the study. These outcomes are used to work toward a
resolution of the issue investigated.
Figure 2: Action research cycle (adapted from Stringer, 2004, p. 5)
Action research within teacher education programs
Action research plays an important role in the preparation and professional development of teachers
and pre-service teachers (Holter & Frabutt, 2012; Perrett, 2003). Specifically, action research initiatives
are used within teacher education programs on national and international levels; namely, in Australia
and in the United States. An initiative from each of these locations is listed and described briefly below.
Australia
In a south-west metropolitan region of Sydney, a research-based program was employed by ESL (English
as a Second Language) teachers and consultants to develop a fusion between trainer-centred input and
teacher-centred action research (Perrett, 2003). Three consultants associated with the Department of
School Education in New South Wales and a lecturer in TESOL (teacher of English to speakers of other
languages) organised the program. Demographically speaking, this region of Sydney is comprised of the
highest percentage of ESL students in the state; it maintains seven Intensive English Centres for newly
arrived high school students, and has numerous ESL teachers in the regular high schools. Twenty-five
volunteer teachers from the area attended the program and six ESL consultants from other Sydney
regions were invited as observers. The areas of input available to teachers included: learning strategies,
thinking skills, questioning skills and the teaching of study skills.
During the four months of this action research project of the teacher educators, teachers
experienced two cycles of action research. The first cycle required teachers to investigate
students' learning strategies, and in the second cycle teachers implemented a plan to improve
some aspect of their students' learning. These aspects included "summary writing, remedial
reading, hotseating, introducing group work, vocabulary-learning techniques" (Perrett, 2003, p.
9). Following the observations of their implemented plans, teachers wrote reports on their work.
At the conclusion of both action research cycles, the results suggested that there was scope for
continuing to develop ways of 'marrying' the input and action research models of professional
development for teachers. More specifically, and according to the teacher educators, the teachers
appreciated being introduced to new ideas in their professional development experiences (Perrett,
2003). Consequently, those teachers stated they were most likely to integrate the insights gained
from such experiences if encouraged to do so in a structured or semi-structured way. The
organisers of the program concluded that considerable amounts of time need to be made
available to teachers if similar projects are to be fully beneficial to learning communities.
Following the completion of two (2) action research cycles, organisers reflected on the
significance of implementing this research-based program for teachers. Specifically, they
administered a summative questionnaire to all teacher participants to identify benefits and
shortcomings of the program itself. In these questionnaires, teachers responded directly and
positively to most aspects, commonly stating: 'Made me aware of learning strategies,' 'Provided
me with ideas for the future. It has made me think about the way my students learn,' and 'My
understanding of action research has broadened.' Most negative responses centred on practical
suggestions concerning logistical aspects of the program. For instance, suggestions included
conducting the projects earlier in the school year, and introducing the model of action research
earlier in the sessions. Perrett noted that in this program, "because the action research projects of
the teachers became the action research of the teacher developers, three levels of learning took
place (2003, p. 9). First, the school students developed their English and their understanding of
how to learn English. Second, the teachers developed new ways of thinking and supporting
student learning. Third, teacher educators engaged in a new model of teacher inservice training.
After examining the outcomes of the program, Perrett concluded that "the results suggest that
there is real scope for continuing to develop ways of marrying the input and action research
models of inservice teacher development" (p. 9). For these researchers, teachers, and students,
the implementation of action research methodology into a school community was considered to
be a beneficial exercise.
The United States of America
At the University of Notre Dame, IN, the Mary Ann Remick Leadership Program is a graduate program
undertaken by aspiring Catholic educational leaders (Holter & Frabutt, 2012). Completion of this
program culminates in a Master of Arts degree in educational administration and leadership. Within the
program, candidates must complete a four-course, 10-credit-hour action research sequence designed
and implemented by the Program's faculty. The four-course sequence of learning experiences occurs
over a three-year period in which "each degree candidate designs, executes, reflects upon, and
disseminates an original, context-specific action research project" (Holter & Frabutt, p. 258). In the first
course (Stage I), the action-researcher identifies an issue, problem, or need that will be the focus of their
inquiry. This process provides an opportunity to identify a potential topic that is focused on change, is
reasonable in scope, and is feasible to complete within one year. Additionally, the candidates are
exposed to the basic components of educational research (research designs, methodologies,
quantitative and qualitative data analysis) while continuing to focus on their own action research topic.
During Stage II candidates - who work as full-time teachers and administrators - implement their
proposed action research project as they return to their schools. At the same time as they carry
out the data collection process of their projects, these teachers and administrators are enrolled in
an online course, Action Research in Catholic Schools I. This course requires candidates to
"complete periodic research journal entries to update course faculty on progress and challenges,
and each candidate receives individual consultation, feedback, and troubleshooting advice as
needed" (Holter & Frabutt, 2012, p. 261). Two other features of Stage II include the completion
of course readings based on key issues in action research, and a peer collaboration exercise. This
exercise is done through groups - where each candidate is allocated to a five or six-member
action research groups - and communication is conducted via email or telephone conference call.
Groups communicate to update one another on progress, and exchange drafts of documentation
used thus far in the action research process.
During the second semester of the academic year, program candidates commence Stage III of the
four-course learning sequence. Candidates enrol in Action Research in Catholic Schools II,
another online course in which they continue to work intensively on their individual action
research project. The effort here is focused on "finalising data collection, defining the pattern of
findings, and specifying the action researcher's interpretations and conclusions based on that
information" (Holter & Frabutt, 2012, p. 262). Additionally, candidates plan for the next
sequential steps of their project, namely: recommendations, suggested new interventions, or a
subsequent round of the action research cycle. One further round of peer review occurs at this
stage, where each candidate exchanges a paper draft with a colleague. The colleague reads the
paper in its entirety, and provides specific written commentary and feedback on each section. In
Stage IV, candidates complete the final iteration of the action research cycle by enrolling in a
capstone course Leadership in Catholic Schools. This course is designed to facilitate reflection
on the process of action research as it has unfolded in the school community, and to encourage
dissemination of the results with their cohort peers and members of their school community
(Holter & Frabutt). In taking a reflective stance towards their action research sequence,
candidates 'unpack' the challenges, successes, and insights their experiences have brought them.
Additionally, they are challenged to outline how the approach, skills and methodology of action
research ultimately shapes them as a school leader.
Following the submission of a final report, emerging school leaders have experienced a full cycle
of action research. As such, program organisers feel that these leaders have acquired a
specialised set of skills and have demonstrated competencies particular to action research.
According to the program organisers, this instructional and experiential process is beneficial to
emerging school leaders as it "enrols members from a particular community, empowers them
with the tools necessary for systematic research, challenges them to apply those tools to their
own community needs, and supports them in the evaluation of the projects and interventions they
are assessing" (Holter & Frabutt, 2012, pp. 263-264). Moreover, these candidates engage in a
problem-solving process directed at an issue of real concern to them and their school community,
and as such, enhance their own effectiveness as school leaders. To illustrate, one program
graduate wrote:
No longer must I feel imprisoned by anecdotal evidence, which is far too often used to make important
decisions regarding the fundamental aspects of the life of the school. Now if there is a problem, I have a
systematic approach to examining existing research on a topic, collecting data, and analysing results that
will allow me instead to be data informed (Holter & Frabutt, p. 264).
All feedback collected from program graduates indicated an appreciation for informed data usage as a
mechanism for school leaders remaining intently focused on mission and continuous improvement.


Professional practice
At The University of Notre Dame Australia, the unit ED6765: Action Research in Education is offered to
Master of Education students in Semester One each year. The unit commences in Summer Term
(January), and concludes at the end of Semester One (June). At the beginning of the unit, students
undertake an intensive mode of study for three (3) days. The purpose of this intensive period is to
provide students with a background to the underlying purposes of research in general, to delineate the
nature and purposes of action research, and to identify the essential elements of the action research
process. Additionally, students are required to design their own action research project which is tailored
to the specific needs of their educational context and circumstances. During the design stage, students
are given 'first-hand' experience in the essential and preliminary action research processes of: clarifying
and defining their selected problem, concern or challenge, and establishing an action research project
focus and framework. Next, students are asked to complete a Research Proposal Application, which is
comprised of several official documents. These documents include: the Research Proposal, two
University Human Research Ethics application documents, and an Application to Conduct Research in
Schools document. Once completed, all documents are submitted to be reviewed by the Research
Committee within the School of Education; following this review, the research projects that will take
place in Catholic schools are forwarded to the Catholic Education Office for further review (in addition to
another set of proposal documents created by the CEOWA).
Once approval has been given for the research projects to commence, students are able to begin
the data gathering stage. Following the January intensive study period, students return to campus
for two 'Follow-Up' days. The purpose of these follow-up days is to provide students with further
skills and knowledge in action research methodology, to allow students the opportunity to
communicate their findings and recommended improvements, and to engage in exercises for
planning and negotiating further actions in research. Additionally, the follow-up days have been
planned at intervals that coincide both with the students' respective 'research journeys', and the
submission of assignments for the unit. In terms of instruction, the teaching component for the
first follow-up day engages students in activities concerned with validity and trustworthiness in
qualitative research, and ethnographic interviewing techniques. The second follow-up day
focuses on analysing and interpreting interview data, with particular attention given to coding
techniques and processes for generating meaning through inferences and hypotheses. Throughout
the duration of the unit all students receive individualised support from the lecturer via email,
telephone, or office appointment.
The four assignments for ED6765: Action Research in Education are designed to complement
the students' respective research journeys. For instance, the first assignment comprises the
completed research proposal and supplementary Human Research Ethics application documents.
This assignment provides students with a solid understanding of the stages of planning and
preparing to conduct qualitative research within schools, and the specialised knowledge required
to complete the appropriate application documents. Assignment Two requires students to
compose a 1,500 word paper that specifically reports on the progress of their particular research
project to date. The progress report allows the students the opportunity to reflect on how-
methodologically speaking - they have been able to arrive at the present point in their project.
Although students are not penalised for a lack of 'quantitative' progress within their projects, a
key indicator of progress is the written testimony that acknowledges how they have been able to
carry out a plan with procedural clarity and sound methodological rigour. Assignment Three is a
2,000 word paper that asks students to examine the methodological aspects of their research
project against key, criteria established by highly experienced action researchers. After
comparison, students are invited to explicitly state how their efforts at designing and conducting
qualitative research could be improved, and outline how they will adjust their project accordingly
such that it corresponds with the recommendations of professional researchers. The final
assignment - Assignment Four - is comprised of two chief tasks: the completion of a summative
report, and the analysis of an original, recorded ethnographic interview. It is here that the
researchers are able to describe how far they have progressed into their projects, what procedural
changes had to be made from the original research plan - and to justify these changes with good
reasons, and to demonstrate proficiency in exercising research skills.
The unit ED6765: Action Research in Education enrols professionals from diverse areas of the
educational enterprise, including: Early Childhood, Primary, Middle School, Secondary School,
Leadership and Administration, and Tertiary. Consequently, the action research projects
undertaken in any given year are increasingly diverse, with topics ranging from pedagogical
efficacy to school-wide improvements in student behaviour. As evidence of this diversity, and to
illustrate the efforts of engaged school practitioners, a brief synopsis of three (3) action research
projects is now offered. The first project concerned one school Principal's approach to reducing
the ongoing, negative behavioural interactions among students at lunchtime. This Principal
collected data from a sample of students across all year levels at her Primary School through the
administration of a qualitative survey. Additionally, all teachers at the school were interviewed
in focus groups of three participants each. After the first 'cycle' of action research was complete,
the Principal reflected on the collected data and determined that she needed to further narrow the
focus of the project. To amplify, she found that a majority of reported incidents on the
playground involved Year 6 or Year 7 male students. For the next cycle of research collection,
the Principal planned to interview all Year 6 and Year 7 students.
A second project involved an Early Childhood teacher investigating ways to reduce anti-social
behaviours among children in her Kindergarten class. Prior to commencing data collection, the
teacher had noted that anti-social behaviours comprised children hitting, pushing, biting, and
spitting. This teacher interviewed all Early Childhood teachers at her school with regards to this
phenomenon, and collected observational data on current incidences of anti-social behaviour
(and how these incidences were resolved). After collating and analysing the data, the teacher
prepared a condensed account of commonly observed anti-social behaviours, together with the
most effective strategies used to resolve the behaviours themselves. After presenting these data
to her Early Childhood colleagues and the school Principal, the teacher began planning an
information session for the upcoming Parent Night. The intention for this session was twofold;
first, to ask the parents what anti-social behaviours they had witnessed outside of school, as well
as effective resolution strategies, and second, to share the data collected thus far in the project.
From this, the teacher wished to include the perspective of parents into developing (i) a school-
wide policy for resolving anti-social behaviours in young children, and (ii) a unilateral approach
between home and school in addressing this phenomenon.
For the third project, a Deputy Principal explored ways to improve the profile of the existing
Professional Development program at his secondary school. At that time, this Deputy Principal
had been tasked with leading a committee of school personnel responsible for the revitalisation
of teacher inservice training. To begin the data collection phase of the project, all staff members
were asked to complete a qualitative survey regarding Professional Development opportunities
currently offered to staff at the school. Following the collation of these initial data, and based on
responses proffered, the Deputy Principal purposively sampled staff for follow-up interviews.
The results of the interviews were analysed and presented to the committee, who in turn,
discussed the next logical steps in the action sequence. The 'act' step of this project was for the
committee to (i) draft a Professional Development framework that took into account the
suggestions, opinions, and needs of the project participants, and to (ii) present this framework to
the school Principal for consideration.
Caveats and difficulties encountered
Over a four-year period, the author/lecturer has noted that students often encounter several, recurring
difficulties with regards to the successful completion of the unit ED6765: Action Research in Education.
These difficulties include: a lack of clarity of focus for the project, managing constraints of time, and
holding a presumed foreknowledge of the solution. Each of these caveats will be discussed briefly,
together with some suggestions that students have found to be useful in alleviating the particular
difficulty.
From the commencement of the unit ED6765: Action Research in Education, students are
required to focus on one area of concern in their classroom or school. Within this area of
concern, students conduct qualitative research in an attempt to illuminate possible solutions to
the prevailing problem. During the intensive period, students are taught to 'narrow down' the
focus of their project by outlining the research participants and determining what will be asked
of these participants. Statements outlining the justification for including these participants and
stakeholders are scrutinised closely, together with the topic being investigated. This is done to
ensure that the research projects are kept manageable, yet challenging and focused intently on
the phenomenon of interest. Without the one-on-one discussion between lecturer and student
prior to research proposal submission, there is a good possibility that several projects would be
too broad to conduct within the specified time frame.
Because this unit requires students to conduct their own research project whilst fulfilling full-
time duties within schools, time management can become an area of difficulty. When preparing
the research proposal, students create a timeline detailing the key events within the unit (contact
days, assignment due dates, proposal submission deadlines). Although this timeline is submitted
as part of the research proposal (as an appendix), students retain an electronic copy of the
timeline to assist with time management throughout the course. During repeated intervals within
the unit, the lecturer remains in contact with the entire cohort of research students through group
email; this contact assists students in meeting deadlines for assignments, preparing for the two
additional contact days, and in maintaining focus on the research project.
The third caveat associated with teaching ED6765: Action Research in Education concerns a
commonly-held predisposition by students when commencing the unit. More specifically - and
upon arrival to campus with a recognised 'problem' ready to investigate - students appear at this
stage more inclined to presuppose to know what the solution to this problem is. Of course, a key
tenet of action research is that one must follow the 'observe-reflect-act' process (Stringer, 2004),
and this highlighted on Days One and Two of the intensive period of study. Furthermore, this
process requires students to speak to (a) suspend any preconceived ideas of what the potential
solution(s) to the problem might be, and (b) speak to all project participants before arriving at a
decision on how to logically proceed with a plan towards improvement. During the intensive
period of study, the lecturer uses several opportunities to carefully explicate that the action
research sequence is one that requires patience in planning, researching, and analysing data
before committing to a plan of action. These opportunities include the explicit instruction of key
principles of action research, during a one-on-one discussion at the proposal planning and
submission stage, and through the ongoing provision of feedback regarding the research projects.
Conclusion
There is clear evidence to suggest that action research is a valuable exercise for teachers to undertake. It
offers teachers a systematic (Frabutt et al., 2008), collaborative (Kemmis & McTaggart, 1988), and
participatory (Holter & Frabutt, 2012; Mills, 2011) process of inquiry that actively seeks to address areas
of concern or redress. Additionally, action research provides teachers with the technical skills and
specialised knowledge required to effect positive change within classrooms, schools, and communities
(Johnson, 2012; Stringer, 2008). Ultimately, the solutions-based focus, emphasis on fostering
practitioner empowerment, and pragmatic appeal of action research collectively render this research
methodology a worthwhile professional development activity for teachers. There is unlimited scope for
teachers wishing to develop 'customised' action research projects of their own, as topics for
investigation are as multifarious as the daily vignettes evidenced in the teaching profession. To
conclude, universities must include action research as a core unit in teacher preparation degree
programs - either at the undergraduate or postgraduate level, as the action research sequence holds
significant value to improving practice within classrooms, schools, and communities.
References
Barone, T., Berliner, D. C., Blanchard, J., Casanova, U. & McGown, T. (1996). A future for teacher
education: Developing a strong sense of professionalism. In J. Sikula (Ed.), Handbook of research on
teacher education (4th ed., pp. 1108-1149). New York: Macmillan.
Book, C. L. (1996). Professional development schools. In J. Sikula (Ed.), Handbook of research
on teacher education (4th ed., pp. 194-210). New York: Macmillan.
Detert, J. R., Louis, K. S. & Schroeder, R. G. (2001). A culture framework for education:
Defining quality values and their impact in U.S. high schools. School Effectiveness and School
Improvement, 12(2), 183-212. http://dx.doi.org/10.1076/sesi.12.2.183.3454
Dinkelman, T. (1997). The promise of action research for critically reflective teacher education.
The Teacher Educator, 32(4), 250-274. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/08878739709555151
Erickson, F. (1986). Qualitative methods in research on teaching (3rd ed., pp. 119-161). New
York: Macmillan.
Foshay, A. W. (1998). Action research in the nineties. The Educational Forum, 62(2), 108-112.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00131729808983796
Frabutt, J. M., Holter, A. C. & Nuzzi, R. J. (2008). Research, action, and change: Leaders
reshaping Catholic schools. Notre Dame, IN: Alliance for Catholic Education Press.
Fueyo, V. & Koorland, M. A. (1997). Teacher as researcher: A synonym for professionalism.
Journal of Teacher Education, 48(5), 336-344. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0022487197048005003
Hensen, K. T. (1996). Teachers as researchers. In J. Sikula (Ed.), Handbook of research on
teacher education (4th ed., pp. 53-66). New York: Macmillan.
Holter, A. C. & Frabutt, J. M. (2011). Action research in Catholic schools: A step-by-step guide
for practitioners (2nd ed.). Notre Dame, IN: Alliance for Catholic Education Press.
Holter, A. C. & Frabutt, J. M. (2012). Mission driven and data informed leadership. Catholic
Education: A Journal of Inquiry and Practice, 15(2), 253-269.
http://ejournals.bc.edu/ojs/index.php/catholic/article/view/1935/1753
Johnson, A. P. (2012). A short guide to action research (4th ed.). New Jersey: Pearson
Education.
Kemmis, S. & McTaggart, R. (1988). The action research planner. Geelong, Australia: Deakin
University Press.
Marks, H. M., & Louis, K. S. (1997). Does teacher empowerment affect the classroom? The
implication of teacher empowerment for instruction, practice and student performance.
Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 19(3), 245-275.
http://dx.doi.org/10.3102/01623737019003245
McNiff, J., Lomax, P. & Whitehead, J. (1996). You and your action research project. New York:
Routledge.
McTaggart, R. (1997). Reading the collection. In R. McTaggart (Ed.), Participatory action
research (pp. 1-12). Albany, NY: SUNY Press.
Mills, G. E. (2011). Action research: A guide for the teacher researcher (4th ed.). Boston:
Pearson.
Osterman, K. F. & Kottkamp, R. B. (1993). Reflective practice for educators: Improving
schooling through professional development. Newbury Park, CA: Corwin.
Perrett, G. (2003). Teacher development through action research: A case study in focused action
research. Australian Journal of Teacher Education, 27(2), 1-10.
http://ro.ecu.edu.au/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1317&context=ajte
Schmuck, R. A. (1997). Practical action research for change. Arlington Heights, IL:
IRI/Skylight Training and Publishing.
Stringer, E. T. (2008). Action research in education (2nd ed.). New Jersey: Pearson.
Sweetland, S. R. & Hoy, W. K. (2002). School characteristics and educational outcomes: Toward
an organizational model of student achievement in middle schools. Educational Administration
Quarterly, 36(5), 703-729. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/00131610021969173
Tomlinson, C. A. (1995). Action research and practical inquiry: An overview and an invitation to
teachers of gifted learners. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 18(4), 467-484.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/016235329501800407











Action Research in Education
Conducting action research in education can be a rewarding
experience for teachers and can lead to new ideas and strategies
to promote student success. This section of our website is
designed to provide teachers with ideas for using drawings as a data source in their action
research. While your research question(s) will guide your study design you may find drawings to
be a valuable source of data.
To get a sense of how we used drawings in our research on teacher candidates and new teachers
visit the section on our research and view our rubric used to score participant drawings.
The sections below provide guidance and ideas for conducting action research in education.
What is Action Research?
The Process of Classroom Action Research
Action Research Examples
Action Research Topics in Education
Action Research Resources
While there are many different ways to approach action research in education, your goal should
be to find the right combination of research tools that best answer your research question. We
hope you will consider drawings to be one possibility.
Classroom Action Research
Conducting classroom action research can be a rewarding yet challenging endeavor. Having a
well-defined plan will make the process go more smoothly and result in more interesting and
useful research. There are several models you can follow to conduct classroom action research,
but at its most basic form you will:
1. Identify a problem or research question(s).
2. Plan the research (including a literature review and theory of understanding or conceptual
framework).
3. Collect and organize data.
4. Analyze data and make interpretations.
5. Reflect on the process and what you learned.
6. Share findings and take action.
7. Repeat the cycle with new questions or problems found in your research.

Figure 1: Classroom Action Research Model
Most models present action research as a cycle, starting with a question and ending with more
questions. The image above is intended to capture the cyclic nature of classroom action research.
Trustworthiness of Findings
For teachers studying their students or studying their own teaching it is important to understand
that a major goal of action research is to promote change that supports student learning and
success. To attain this goal we need to be able to trust the results of our work and be confident
our conclusions are accurate. There are three primary ways to do this.
The first is to collect data from more than one source (data triangulation) or with more than one
research method (methodological triangulation). In our work we used interview data and written
text in addition to the drawings. Triangulation, or using multiple data sources, will add to the
trustworthiness of your findings.
Another way is to constantly be looking for other explanations or anything that might disprove
our findings. This is a difficult thing to do since we are often vested in our theories about what is
taking place. But asking "What else could explain what I am seeing?" can help us avoid any
blind spots we may have and strengthens our research.
Finally, approaching classroom action research as a cycle will allow you to refine and strengthen
your findings. Each time you move though the cycle there are new opportunities to question,
observe, and reflect. In this sense, your research builds upon itself to enhance your understanding
of teaching and student learning.

Action Research Examples in Education
Teachers interested in studying their own teaching or classroom context often ask for action
research examples in education to give them an idea of what types of research can be done.
There are numerous approaches, data collection options, and ways to analyze data. We'll focus
on two examples that use our research methodology and drawings as the primary data source.
Note that your research question(s) will determine the best source of data. For the examples
below, drawings are appropriate, especially when combined with other sources of data.
The examples below highlight two ways drawings might be used in action research. Understand
that finding the right topic and research question(s) can be challenging. Before you begin
planning your study, take the time think about your topic and question. You will be rewarded
with more satisfying and useful research findings.
Action Research in an ESL Classroom:
An example of using drawings to understand second language learners' prior learning
experiences. The example also includes the use of student writing and interviewing to support
the research.
Action Research about Science Experiences:
In this example of action research, drawings, along with other data sources, are used to study
students' experiences with science outside of the classroom context.
Sample Action Research Resources:
Links to online resources that provide numerous examples of action research.

Action Research Topics in Education
Perhaps one of the most challenging aspects of research is identifying a useful, interesting, and
manageable question or topic.
According to Eileen Ferrance at the Northeast and Islands Regional Educational Laboratory at
Brown University, good action research topics in education are meaningful, concise, and higher-
order questions that have not already been answered. Further, they should be of interest to the
researcher and have the potential to lead to improved student
learning.
Action Research Topics Using Drawings: sample Action
Research topics using drawings as a primary data source.
Action Research Examples: examples of Action Research by practicing teachers using a wide
variety of research methodologies.
What Makes a Good Question? Get ideas and suggestions on developing your own research
questions.
Whatever action research topic you decide to study, remember that it should enable you to take
meaningful action. In addition, it should also be interesting enough to keep you engaged and
motivated as you work through the process. Finally, your research should allow you to improve
your teaching and your ability to help students learn and be successful.

Action Research Resources
Although you're already here at www.DrawnToScience.org you may want to visit the
Researchers section of this website to see how we've used drawings in our research. The scoring
rubric and supplemental instructions offer a tested way to analyze data based on nationally
recognized standards for informal science education. If you're a teacher in a different subject area
you may want to adapt our approach in your action research.
There are many resources available online for teachers interested
in using action research to study their own teaching and
classroom context. Three useful online resources to start with are:
Center for Collaborative Action Research at Pepperdine
University

Madison Metropolitan School District's Action Research Guide

Networks: An Online Journal for Teacher Research

Action Research Canada

Finding Teacher Action Research Resources on the Web
Books are often available from your district's professional development library. We recommend:
Mills, G. E. (2011). Action research: A guide for the teacher researcher. Boston: Pearson.
Note that the third edition (2006) is also a good resource.
What is action research?
Action research is done by teachers to understand their own teaching and students. The most
effective action research results in opportunities to improve
learning and engagement.
When we ask "What is action research?" it is important to keep
in mind that action research is different from research conducted
by academicians at universities. The goal of academic research is
usually to conduct research that will generalize to larger
populations. In contrast, action researchers are more interested in
gaining knowledge that can be directly applied to their own teaching context. As Geoffrey Mills
states, "action research is research done by teachers for themselves" (Mills, 2007). While action
researchers often publish and share their findings with others, this is not the primary purpose of
their research.
Benefits of Action Research
There are many benefits to conducting action research but it does require time and energy,
something that is at a premium for busy teachers. Our goal here is to provide you with examples
and ideas about how drawings can be used as data to learn about your students and your own
teaching in order to make the process more effective and rewarding.
Action research can:
lead to positive change in your classroom and school.
offer professional development and continual improvement.
provide opportunities for collaboration with colleagues.
be a part of a successful masters degree.
create an opportunity to reflect on your own practice.
Drawings and Other Sources of Data for Action
Research
Action researchers will often collect data from several sources to
strengthen their analysis and conclusions. In our research we used
interviews and written text in addition to drawings. Using multiple
data sources, termed triangulation, can also include surveys,
student grades, homework completion, instruments measuring
student motivation, and so on. As you think about how you will
collect data for your action research project, consider what sources
are available and how these will help you address your research
question. Often a combination or data sources will lead you to stronger and more compelling
conclusions.
There's much more to action research than presented here. To read more about "What is action
research?" please visit our Action Research Resources section.