Action research: three approaches.

Calhoun, Emily F.

Educational Leadership v51, n2 (Oct, 1993):62 (4 pages).

1993

Differing in purpose, emphasis, and results, three types of

action research allow educators to investigate areas of

concern and meet the challenges within their classrooms

and schools.

Anita Simmons records her 1st

graders' responses to questions

about simple fractions after

using different displays and

activities with them. She wants

to determine which presentations are

more effective than others.

Four middle school teachers--Elitrus

and Paula from Rogers School,

and Angie and Robert from Wilshire

School experiment with mnemonic

key words in their science classes.

They want to help students better

retain and understand key science

concepts and terms. They consult

frequently with a member of the

county intermediate agency and a

professor from the nearby state university,

both of whom are experimenting

with the same method.

The faculty at Thomas High School

wants to increase student achievement.

To obtain this goal, all faculty

members add a new instructional

strategy, such as the inquiry approach

or inductive thinking strategies. They

observe and record student responses

to the change in instruction and

discuss their findings. A leadership

team meets bimonthly for technical

assistance with the Consortium for

Action Research, a regional group

sponsored by the state department of

education.

These three scenarios all describe

action research. The first, carried out

by a single teacher, is individual

teacher research. The second,

conducted by a volunteer group

working with a university professor

and staff development officer, is

collaborative action research. The

third, involving an entire faculty in

conjunction with a school consortium,

is schoolwide action research. True

to earlier concepts of action research,

the work centers on the practitioner;

this is research done by teachers and

administrators.

Action research was here before, in

the 1940s and '50s, developed by Kurt

Lewin and his colleagues as a collective

problem-solving cycle for

improving organizations

Lewin

1947, 1948; Corey

1953). The term

action research

captured the notion

of disciplined

inquiry (research)

in the context of

focused efforts to

improve the quality

of an organization

and its performance

(action). Today,

action research

remains a powerful tool for simultaneously

improving the practice and the

health of an organization.

Benefits of Action Research

For teachers, principals, and district

office personnel, action research

promises progress in professionalization.

The process allows them to experience

problem solving and to model it

for their students. They carefully

collect data to diagnose problems,

search for solutions, take action on

promising possibilities, and monitor

whether and how well the action

worked. The cycle can repeat itself

many times, focusing on the same

problem or on another. The process

can help develop a professional

problem-solving ethos (Corey 1953,

Joyce 1991, Schaefer 1967, Sirotnik

1987).

Action research can revitalize the

entire learning community, as well as

aid teachers in changing or reflecting

on their classroom practices. It can

support initiatives by individual

teachers, schools, schools working

with communities, and districts. In

addition, more than one type of action

research can be used in a given setting

at the same time.

Selecting one

type of action

research over

another has important

implications

for the school

renewal process.

From my work

with action

research as a

consultant, coordinator,

and

researcher, I have

gathered data on

action research from 76 schools in

three states. These data indicate that

besides the obvious distinctions about

how many people are involved, the

three types of action research vary in

their emphasis on achieving equity for

students, improving the organization

as a problem-solving unit, and developing

collegial relations among

teachers. Further, each type has

different long-term objectives,

purposes, and results. The key to selection

is the purpose of the inquiry.

Faculties and individuals choosing

the type of action research that will

best serve their needs should consider

five elements: (1) purpose and

process; (2) support provided by

outside agencies such as universities,

intermediate service agencies (for

example, the Regional Service Educational

Agency in Georgia), consortiums,

and central office personnel;

(3) the kind of data utilized; (4) the

audience for the research; and (5) the

expected side effects.

Individual Teacher Research

Purpose and process. Individual

teacher research usually focuses on

changes in a single classroom. A

teacher defines an area or problem of

interest in classroom management,

instructional strategies or materials, or

students' cognitive or social behavior.

The teacher then seeks solutions to the

problem. Students may or may not be

directly involved in helping to

generate alternatives and determining

effects. If parents are involved, they

are usually consulted as sources of

information.

Outside support. Individual teacher

research is frequently inspired by

university courses, a descriptive article

about action research, or an encouraging

supervisor, principal, staff

development coordinator, or professor

(see Oja and Smulyan 1989, Rogers

et al. 1990, and Strickland 1988).

Because support by administrators

varies by site and by their personal

interest in the area being explored,

external agencies often provide

teachers with the needed support.

Sometimes the external agent acts

as a mentor to the teacher.

Data utilized. Some individual

teacher researchers use quantitative

data, developing measures and

forming and testing hypotheses.

They experiment with different

actions fashioned to address the

problem, study and record the effects

of those actions, and keep, modify,

or discard ways of acting based on

their findings. Some teachers use

qualitative data in similar processes.

A few teachers, operating more like

phenomenologists, prefer to let the

hypotheses emerge from the process

(Carr and Kemmis 1983).

Audience. The primary audience

for the results of individual teacher

research is the teacher conducting the

research. If students have participated

directly in the investigation, then they,

too, form part of the primary audience.

Whether the results are shared with

secondary audiences through staff

development presentations, professional

conferences, school district

newsletters, or articles in professional

journals is at the discretion of the

individual teacher.

Side effects. The effects of individual

teacher research may or may

not reach outside the classroom.

Several teachers within the same

school may be conducting action

research on a similar topic, but they

may or may not discuss their experiences

and results. The amount of

sharing depends on the collegiality

of the individuals. Where such sharing

occurs, collegiality at the school may

be enhanced.

Collaborative Action Research

Purpose and process. Depending on

the numbers of teachers involved,

collaborative action research can focus

on problems and changes in a single

classroom or on a problem occurring

in several classrooms. A research team

might even take on a districtwide

problem, but focus its inquiry on

classrooms. The research team may

include as few as two persons, or it

may include several teachers and

administrators working with staff from

a university or other external agency.

The team follows the same investigative

and reflective cycle as the individual

teacher-researcher.

Outside support. Teachers and

administrators often work with

university staff, intermediate service

agency personnel, or members of an

educational consortium when doing

collaborative action research (Holly

1991, Sagor 1991, Whitford et al.

1987). Collaborative action research

frequently involves school-university

partnerships and mutual support from

each participating organization (see

Allen et al. 1988). The relationship

is similar to the interactive research

and development framework of

the late 1970s (Tikunoff and Mergendoller

1983).

Teachers engaged in collaborative

action research generally volunteer to

participate or seek out affiliation with

local University personnel who have

expertise in particular curriculum areas.

Professors, district office personnel, or

principals may recruit teachers to

explore an area in need of improvement

or to field-test promising approaches.

Recruiting teachers for field-testing is

especially prevalent when agency

personnel initiate the study.

Data utilized. As in individual

teacher research, the data utilized by

collaborative action researchers may

be qualitative or quantitative. Data are

more likely to be quantitative if the

central office or intermediate service

agency defines the study area. The

larger collaborative research team

might also use a greater variety of

methods than the individual teacher-researcher

and divide die labor,

focusing on different dimensions of a

problem. For example, in a study of

disciplinary action, one member might

survey parents, a second member

might interview teachers, and a third

might count referrals and organize

them by cause and consequences.

Audience. The members of the

research team are the primary audience

for results from collaborative

action research. Depending on their

involvement in formulating and

shaping the investigation, students

and parents may form part of the

primary audience. If the school

administration, the district office, or

a university sponsored the research,

then these groups also form part of

the primary audience.

Collaborative action researchers

appear to share results with secondary

audiences more frequently than do

individual teacher researchers and

participants in schoolwide action

research. This may result from the

involvement of university personnel in

the process, who, besides providing

support to teachers, are exploring their

own areas of professional interest.

Because their university positions

require them to generate and share

knowledge, university personnel often

have more time to write about the

action research experience and more

opportunities to present the results.

This writing and presentation is often

done in collaboration with one or

more of the participating practitioners.

Side effects. While the work

between school or district practitioners

and university personnel is collaborative

and mutually beneficial, a major

benefit to practitioners is the almost

tutorial role university personnel play

in helping them develop the tools of

social science inquiry. Some groups

stay together for several years,

conducting several studies in areas of

common interest, while their technical

skills and expertise in inquiry continue

to grow. Such collaboration also

generally improves collegiality.

Schoolwide Action Research

Purpose and process. In schoolwide

action research, a school faculty selects

an area or problem of collective

interest, then collects, organizes, and

interprets on-site data. Data from other

schools, districts, or the professional

literature are funneled into the collective

decision-making process of the

faculty, who then determines the actions

to be taken. The process is cyclic and

can serve as a formative evaluation of

the effects of the actions taken.

Schoolwide action research focuses

on school improvement in three areas.

First, it seeks to improve the organization

as a problem-solving entity. With

repeated cycles, it is hoped that faculty

members will become better able to

work together to identify and solve

problems. Second, schoolwide

research tries to improve equity for

students. For example, if the faculty

studies the writing process in order to

offer better instructional opportunities

for students, the intent is that all

students benefit. Third, schoolwide

action research tries to increase the

breadth and content of the inquiry

itself. Every classroom and teacher is

involved in collective study and

assessment. In addition, faculty

members may involve students,

parents, and even the general community

in data collection and interpretation

and in the selection of options

for action.

A school executive council or leadership

team composed of teachers and

administrators often shares the responsibility

for keeping the process

moving. These leaders spur the

collecting, organizing, and interpretation

of the data, disseminate on-site

data and applicable professional literature

for collective analysis and study,

and support the actions selected for

implementation by the learning

community.

Outside support. School leadership

teams or district administrators often

initiate schoolwide inquiry because of

their affiliation with a consortium that

promotes action research as a major

school improvement strategy. Through

exposure to consortiums such as the

Center for Leadership in School

Reform in Kentucky or the League of

Professional Schools in Georgia,

school leaders read about schoolwide

inquiry, attend awareness sessions, or

discuss it with peers who are using it.

They then work to apply schoolwide

inquiry in their home settings.

Data utilized. The data gathered

from studying the school site and

the effects of actions taken may be

quantitative, qualitative, or both. The

data collection can be as simple as

counting types of writing elicited from

students or as complex as a multi-year

case study. Faculty members might

divide the labor as in the case of

collaborative action research. They

might also reach out to other schools

studying similar problems and trying

the same or different solutions.

For greatest effect, the data should

be collected regularly, and evaluation

of actions taken should be formative.

Relying on summative evaluations

such as yearly norm-referenced tests

will lessen the dynamism of the

process. Standard tests, however, can

be used to collaborate the results of

the formative studies. In almost all

cases, multiple assessment measures

are needed (Calhoun 1992, Glickman

1990, Holly 1992).

Audience. The audience for the

results of schoolwide action research

includes all the primary participants,

at least the total school faculty.

The faculty may decide to expand

this audience to include students,

parents, the general community,

and the school board.

Side effects. Collective action

may be the most complex type of

action research, requiring participation

from all members of the faculty. This

complexity, however, generates important

side effects: the faculty learns

to build collegiality and to manage

the group process. Teachers reflect

on aspects of curriculum and instruction

they might not have if they had

worked alone.

Schoolwide action research may

feel messy and uneven, and conflict

may arise during the first few cycles,

but this is to be expected when a

diverse community is learning to

apply a complex process. Collecting

schoolwide data on an instructional

initiative requires trust and mental and

physical collaboration. Marshalling

the efforts of all both takes and .

provides energy. Sharing the results

from individual classrooms requires

patience and understanding toward

self and others.

Reflecting on Action Research

In recent years many teachers and

administrators have engaged in

productive curricular and instructional

improvement through each type of

action research. Part of the promise

inherent in the action research format

is support of the current movement

toward site-based decision making. In

many cases, collaborative relationships

have increased between school

personnel and members of central

district offices, intermediate agencies,

and university personnel. Using

schoolwide action research has

increased the problem-solving capabilities

of schools, and even districts.

As knowledge about the process

accumulates and we explore action

research, we will be better able to

guide our school improvement efforts.

Assuming that the trend toward action

research continues and more and

better studies about its effects are

produced, we will be able to make

more informed assessments of its

influence on student opportunities

to learn. These results should be

positive, for action research has the

potential to generate the energy and

knowledge needed to support healthy

learning communities. Our challenge

as educators is to make this potential

a reality.

References

Allen, J., J. Combs, M. Hendricks, P. Nash,

and S. Wilson. (1988). "Studying Change:

Teachers Who Became Researchers."

Language Arts 65, 4: 379-387.

Calhoun, E. F. (1992). "A Status Report on

Action Research in the League of Professional

Schools." In Lessons from the

League: Improving Schools through

Shared Governance and Action

Research: Vol.2. Athens, Ga.: Program

for School Improvement, College of

Education, UGA.

Carr, W., and S. Kemmis. (1983).

Becoming Critical: Knowing through

Action Research. Geelong, Victoria:

Deakin Press.

Corey, S. M. (1953). Action Research to

Improve School Practices. New York:

Teachers College Press.

Glickman, C. D. (1990). Supervision of

Instruction: A Developmental Approach.

Boston: Allyn Bacon.

Holly, P. (1991). "Action Research Within

Institutional Development: It's

Becoming Second Nature to Us Now."

Paper presented at the annual meeting of

the American Educational Research

Association, Chicago.

Holly, P. (1992). Comments made during

an Action Research Workshop in Ames,

Iowa.

Joyce, B. R. (1991). "Doors to School

Improvement." Educational Leadership

48, 8: 59-62.

Lewin, K. (1947). "Group Decisions and

Social Change." In Readings in Social

Psychology, edited by T. M. Newcomb

and E. L. Hartley. New York: Henry Holt.

Lewin, K. (1948). Resolving Social

Conflicts: Selected Papers on Group

Dynamics. New York: Harper and Row.

Oja, S. N., and L. Smulyan. (1989). Collaborative

Action Research: A Developmental

Approach. London: Falmer Press.

Rogers, D., R. Haven-O'Donnell, S.

Hebdon, and F. Ferrell. (1990). "Lessons

on-relating Research, Reflection, and

Reform from Three Researcher/Practitioner

Projects." Paper presented at the

annual meeting of the American Educational

Research Association, Boston.

Sagor, R. (1991). "What Project LEARN

Reveals about Collaborative Action

Research." Educational Leadership 48,

6: 6-10.

Schaefer, R. J. (1967). The School as a

Center of Inquiry. New York: Harper

and Row.

Sirotnik, K. A. (1987). "Evaluation in the

Ecology of Schooling." In The Ecology

of School Renewal: The Eighty-Sixth

Yearbook of the National Society for the

Study of Education, edited by J. 1.

Goodlad. Chicago: The University of

Chicago Press.

Strickland, D. S. (1988). "The Teacher

As Researcher: Toward the Extended

Professional." Language Arts 65, 8:

754-764.

Tikunoff, W. J., and J. R. Mergendoller.

(1983 ). "Inquiry as a Means to Professional

Growth: The Teacher as

Researcher." In Staff Development:

Eighty-Second Yearbook of the National

Society for the Study of Education, edited

by G. A. Griffin. Chicago: The University

of Chicago Press.

Whitford, B. L., P. C. Schlechty, and L. G.

Shelor. (1987). "Sustaining Action

Research Through Collaboration:

Inquiries for Invention." Peabody

Journal of Education 64, 3: 151-169.