Category: Professional practice

Gregory S.C. Hine and Shane D. Lavery
The University of Notre Dame Australia
Email: gregory.hine@nd.edu.au, shane.lavery@nd.edu.au

This research paper explores the experiences of three teacher-researchers, 'Simone', 'Damian' and 'Michael', who undertook an Action Research project in their respective schools as part of their postgraduate studies. As Head of Professional Learning, Simone conducted a research project designed to investigate how to improve a Peer Observation Program operating at her secondary school. Damian, also a Head of Professional Learning, explored ways to improve the profile of the existing Professional Development program at his secondary school, with a particular emphasis on overhauling the Staff Mentor Program. Michael, a Head of Junior School, investigated ways to reduce the number of playground incidents resulting from primary students not adhering to playground policy rules. The paper initially outlines the construct of Action Research in the light of its applicability to educational research. Particular reference is made to the benefits of Action Research for those in the teaching profession as well as to several challenges associated with Action Research. What then follows is the design of the methodology that was used to examine the experiences of Simone, Damian and Michael. The research used a qualitative paradigm, specifically that of interpretivism, and employed a symbolic interactionist perspective to examine each participant's project as individual case studies. Data collection took the form of three 40 minute semi-structured interviews. The findings fall under three major themes: Action Research as a valuable methodology, the impact of the Action Research on the school community, and challenges encountered when conducting the Action Research. The findings are then discussed in the light of the literature.

Introduction to action research

Action research provides the means by which professional people may increase the effectiveness of the work in which they are engaged (Mills, 2013; Lingard et al., 2008; Stringer, 2008; Whitehead et al., 2003). More specifically, the nature of action research departs from the 'traditional' scientific/research approaches of determining a generalised solution that can be applied to all contexts (Johnson, 2012; Stringer). Instead, Stringer (2008, p. 1) notes that action research

is based on the proposition that generalised solutions may not fit particular contexts or groups of people and that the purpose of inquiry is to find an appropriate solution for the particular dynamics at work in a local situation.

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; Koshy & Koshy, 2010) or within a broader community (Mills, 2011).

Action research in education

Benefits

Third, action research is an effective and worthwhile means of professional growth and development (Osterman & Kottkamp, 1993). Traditional teacher inservices are often ineffective (Barone et al., 1996) and generally do not give teachers sufficient time, activities, or content to increase their knowledge or affect their practice (Birman, Desimone, Porter, & Garet, 2000). Teacher inservices on action research offer a way for teachers to reflect critically on their practice (Cain & Harris, 2013; Darling-Hammond & McLaughlin, 1995; Hodgson, 2013), stimulate change in their thinking and practice (Furlong & Salisbury, 2005; Zeichner, 2003), and promote self-improvement and self-awareness (Judah & Richardson, 2006). 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 (Hine, 2013). 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 (Hine, 2013).

Challenges

Professional practice context

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 are 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.

Methodology

The experiences and reflections of the three participants were obtained through three individual 40-minute semi-structured interviews. The interviews were held on the school sites of each participant and were digitally recorded with permission and subsequently transcribed by a third party. Participants reviewed the transcriptions as a means of enhancing credibility (Erlandson, Harris, Skipper, & Allen, 1993). The two investigators also took notes during each interview. The interview questions are listed in Table 1.

1.	What does action research mean to you?
2.	Describe the steps of your action research project.
3.	What do you see as your role (s) regarding this action research project?
4.	Why have you continued with this action research project after the completion of the unit ED6765: Action Research in Education?
5.	Describe how action research has effected any changes within the school's practices, or within the school community.
6.	Discuss any obstacles that you have encountered during the action research process.
7.	Is there anything else you would like to comment on regarding action research?

The theoretical perspective for the study entailed an interpretive paradigm incorporating a symbolic interactionist lens. Symbolic interaction directs investigators to take, to the best of their ability, the standpoint of those being studied (Crotty, 1998). Consistent with this perspective, the current study enabled the researchers to examine the impact of action research in schools through the experiences and reflections of the three participants implementing the action research projects. Case study was the preferred methodology used to explore these individuals' perceptions of their experiences and reflections (Berg, 2007). Case study was selected because, in line with a symbolic interactionist approach, it attempts to bring out details "from the viewpoint of the participants" (Tellis, 1997, p. 1) and uses a variety of methods such as interviews and participant observation (Patton, 1990). The three case studies formed a collective case study structure (Stake, 1994). The purpose of this structure was to explore each case jointly to better understand ways undertaking action research in schools can inform strategic planning. Table 2 outlines the specific case studies including the pseudonym of the participant, the specific action research project undertaken by the participant and the type of school where the participant initiated the action research. All three participants teach in Catholic schools.

Participant (Pseudonym)	Action Research Project	School
Simone	Finding ways to increase the participation rate of teachers involved in a voluntary peer observation and feedback process.	Year 7-12 Girls
Damian	Finding a way to improve professional development and professional learning practices at our school	Year 7-12 Boys
Michael	Finding a way to enhance student behaviour in the playground.	Year 4-6 Boys

The format for analysing the data was consistent with that described by Miles and Huberman (1994). The format consisted of data collection, data reduction, data display and conclusion drawing/verification. First, each researcher read the interview transcriptions. The data were then reduced through the use of emerging themes (as headings), each researcher selecting segments of language that highlighted particular themes. These segments were then displayed visually under each theme heading and both researchers perused each list and jointly selected appropriate exemplars of each theme. Human Research Ethical clearance was obtained from the University of Notre Dame Australia and the Catholic Education Office of Western Australia to allow the researchers to interview the three participants. As a matter of procedure, permission was obtained from the principals of the three schools as well as the participants.

Case studies

The second case study concerned a Head of Professional Learning (Damian) who explored ways to improve the profile of the existing Professional Development program at his secondary school. In particular, Damian wanted to overhaul radically the Staff Mentor Program. At that time, Damian had been tasked with leading a committee of school personnel responsible for the revitalisation of teacher in-service 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, Damian purposively sampled staff for follow-up interviews. The results of the interviews were analysed and presented to the committee, which 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.

The third case study involved a Head of Junior School (Michael) investigating ways to reduce the number of playground incidents resulting from primary students not adhering to the playground policy rules. The aim of the project was to find ways to promote student compliance in the playground and to engender a more harmonious school environment. At this school, students are encouraged to be active during their recess and lunch periods and a number of play areas are available to them including an oval, handball courts, playground equipment, and a large multi-purpose activity area. For the data collection phase of his project, Michael issued a questionnaire to all teachers, parents, and students of the Junior School community. Those individuals who responded to the questionnaire were subsequently invited to participate in a focus group interview. Michael designed both the questionnaire and the focus group interview so that all participants were able to offer an opinion of the current playground behaviour policy. After all data were recorded, transcribed and collated, Michael presented the key findings to a staff committee. Based on these key findings, the committee (i) discussed and implemented changes to the policy and (ii) informed all staff of these changes at the next Staff Meeting. Michael has continued to conduct research into this phenomenon after the first iteration was complete.

Findings

Critical to the success of their action research projects was the fact that each participant chose a topic that was decidedly relevant to his or her role in the school. Michael commented that his action research topic "evolved from an actual school playground compliancy issue that was causing some concern". He noted that associated with this issue "was a staff communication problem related to the reporting" of inappropriate student behaviour. Simone's topic dealt with the introduction of a Peer Observation Program "that aimed at breaking down some of the classroom isolation experienced by some teachers". She believed that by "engaging in an Action Research project that sought people's opinions the Peer Observation Program would be better received". Damian used the action research approach to "tap into what people really thought about the Staff Mentoring Program". He was confident that action research would provide answers to questions such as: "Is the mentoring program serving the needs of the subject teacher?" Does the program "give a clearer understanding of what good teachers do?" Does the program "help with determining some type of career path?" And lastly, "how does one's professional development have synergy with the staff mentoring program?"

Participants commented on the need for various phases or cycles of data collection to refine the studies. As an example, Simone sent a survey out to 100 staff to determine their reaction to a Peer Observation Program. She was interested to see if the survey "would reveal any factors that would indicate why some supported and some were not supportive". She received only 30 responses and noted that, "in hindsight, the low return was because I asked respondents to place their names on the questionnaires". Simone's next step was to run a focus group with supporters to "identify reasons behind their support". Following this focus group Simone found herself "at a standstill" since, as she observed, "I needed feedback from the resistors". In the end, she "tapped people on the shoulder" and managed to assemble a small group of the resistors. What she found was that people felt threatened by the proposed Peer Observation Program Ð it brought back "bad memories of teaching practice experiences". In the next stage, Simone organised a full staff professional development session and employed a well-respected keynote speaker to communicate the key positive features of Peer Observation.

All three participants remarked on the impact of undertaking an action research project at their school. For example, Michael stated, "action research benefits the school since you come up with a policy that is tailor made for a specifically identified situation". Explicitly, he observed the "positive consequence in the reduction of the number of playground non-compliancy behaviours". Michael commented on "the growth of a more positive culture in the school and a growth of student-based initiatives". He remarked on how "students have been empowered to see situations and diffuse non compliancy behaviour so that it does not become a major issue". Further, Michael observed, "we've moved from establishing a policy to identifying strategies that will add to the pastoral nature of the school". One particular strategy, Michael noted, was the introduction of a Year 6 retreat held off campus, the aim being "to empower the Year 6 students".

Simone had gone through a somewhat challenging process in attempting to introduce the Peer Observation Process. However, she believed that staff members had become more supportive, particularly following the full staff professional development session. She remarked on an evolving attitude of "I get it now, I'm prepared to give it a go". Simone indicated that she stated that the Peer Observation Program has expanded to 50 people where "each Learning Area has adopted an organisational approach that best suits them". She intended to arrange another round of focus group discussions "where I can get a more critical analysis of the way the program has been implemented up to this date". In particular, Simone hoped that these focus group discussions would provide "suggested refinements for next year (2014)".

Damian used action research primarily to improve his school's Staff Mentor Program. He indicated that he was dealing with a largely supportive and accommodating staff and was conscious of acting in such a way as not to influence staff opinions. Damian emphasised that during the process there was constant referral back to the first stage of the action research model. That is, staff members were continually asked: "What are your needs? How would you like your needs to be served in the new model?" Moreover, staff members were given the opportunity to comment on the efficacy of the revised Mentoring program. Damian noted three outcomes from the Action Research project: teachers were provided with a broader reference to identify their strengths and weaknesses; "professional conversations" were "introduced into the staff meeting arena" with a view to supporting appropriate professional development opportunities; and there was a concerted effort to ensure that "professional development attendances matched identified professional development needs".

Participants were asked to identify challenges in implementing their Action Research Projects. They highlighted three. First, as Michael noted, the process can, at times, be "taxing" in the sense that Action Research can be a "long protracted process". Second, Damian remarked on the absolute importance and challenge of ensuring "confidentiality and privacy protocols" in the work situation. Michael also made this point with respect to guaranteeing "genuine" data. Finally, Simone observed that it is easy "to have critical discussions with people you feel comfortable with". The challenge for Simone was to have discussions with people she did not feel comfortable with. As she stated: "this situation required me getting out of my 'comfort zone' and prioritising such interviews". Notwithstanding these challenges, all three participants commented on the value of the action research process. They remarked on the strength of action research to involve all stakeholders in the decision-making process. Moreover, they noted that, despite the length of time involved, the process is highly worthwhile because, in the words of Michael, "the end product is seen within the school environment as being a valuable change".

Discussion

All three teacher-researchers highlighted that action research provided them with a valuable research methodology to examine what they considered to be a critical issue within their respective schools. Comments were made about action research being an appropriate methodology to explore localised issues in significant detail (Meyer, 2000) using a range of research participants (Mills, 2013). Attention was drawn to the systematic and cyclical nature of action research (Ado, 2013; Frabutt et al., 2008; Stringer, 2008), whereby multiple cycles were needed to completely understand the problem, gather enough meaningful data, and to implement positive, school-wide change (Holter & Frabutt, 2012; Mills). Additionally, the teachers emphasised that action research enabled to them engage fellow colleagues in the problem-solving process (Hine, 2013), and to empower these colleagues in taking collective ownership of the particular issue (Fueyo & Koorland, 1997). By adopting a collaborative approach to their action research projects, these teachers were able to identify, plan, and implement changes needed for school improvement (Hine; Mills).

The teacher-researchers outlined that the action research process positively impacted on their respective school communities. A common remark was that the 'Observe' and 'Reflect' stages of the process assisted teachers in gaining clear insight regarding a particular issue (Mills, 2013) before implementing changes to school culture and policy (Act)(Holter & Frabutt, 2012). In particular, the teachers underscored the collaborative (Kemmis & McTaggart, 1988) and participatory (Holter & Frabutt; Mills) nature of action research across all of the stages and numerous iterations (Johnson, 2012; McTaggart, 1997). Again, teachers commented that because the implemented changes had been 'tailored' to suit their particular students, staff, and school community, the impact was demonstrably positive (Meyer, 2000; Stringer, 2008).

In addition to the numerous claims by the teacher-researchers that action research had positively benefitted their respective school communities, some challenges associated with the research methodology were voiced. One commonly cited challenge was the protracted time-frame associated with the action research process (Bailey, 1999; Hine, 2013; Wong, 1993). The extra time spent engaging with the action research process required the teacher-researchers to conduct research during non-teaching times, and to manage time more effectively overall. None of the interviewed teacher-researchers indicated that a decrease in the quality of instruction had resulted from conducting research (Foster & Nixon, 1978; Wong, 1993). A second challenge involved teachers questioning the validity of collected data (Brown, 2002; Water-Adams, 2006). To address the issue of how 'genuine' data were, teacher-researchers interviewed a broad sample of participants to access multiple viewpoints concerning a particular issue. Moreover, each teacher-researcher deliberately involved other key staff in the data analysis and implementation stages of their projects. Doing so enabled others' perspectives to be voiced and considered, reinforcing the participatory and collaborative nature of action research (Holter & Frabutt, 2012; Mills, 2013). While all three teacher-researchers proffered various challenges associated with action research, they also claimed that action research was a personally and professionally rewarding experience.

Conclusion

References

Bailey, K. (1999). President's message: Approaches to empirical research in TESOL. TESOL Matters, 8(6), Alexandria, VA: Teachers of English to Speakers of Other Languages, Inc. (TESOL).

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 Library Reference USA.

Berg, B. L. (2007). Qualitative research methods for the social sciences (6th ed.). Boston: Allyn and Bacon.

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 Library Reference USA.

Brown, B. L. (2002). Improving teaching practices through action research. Unpublished dissertation, Faculty of the Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University. http://scholar.lib.vt.edu/theses/available/etd-04152002-182022/

Cain, T. & Harris, R. (2013). Teachers' action research in a culture of performativity. Educational Action Research, 21(3), 343-358. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09650792.2013.815039

Crotty, M. (1998). The foundations of social research: Meaning and perspective in the research process. Crows Nest, NSW: Allen Unwin.

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, 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), 250-257. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/08878739709555151

Erickson, F. (1986). Qualitative methods in research on teaching (3rd ed). New York: Macmillan.

Erlandson, D., Harris, E., Skipper, B. & Allen, S. (1993). Doing naturalistic enquiry: A guide to methods. Newbury Park: SAGE Publications.

Ferrance, E. (2000). Action research. Providence, RI: LAB at Brown University.

Foshy, A. W. (1998). Action research in the nineties. The Educational Forum, 62(2), 108-112. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00131729808983796

Foster, L. & Nixon, M. (1978). Teacher as researcher: The problem reconsidered. Canadian Journal of Education, 3(1), 75-88. http://www.jstor.org/stable/1494513

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 Library Reference USA.

Hine, G. S. C. (2013). The importance of action research in teacher education programs. Issues in Educational Research, 23(2), 151-163. http://www.iier.org.au/iier23/hine.html

Hodgson, Y., Benson, R. & Brack, C. (2013). Using action research to improve student engagement in a peer-assisted learning programme. Educational Action Research, 21(3), 359-375. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09650792.2013.813399

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://digitalcommons.lmu.edu/ce/vol15/iss2/10

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.

Koshy, E., Koshy, V. & Waterman, H. (2010). Action research in healthcare. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications.

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.

Miles, M. B. & Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks: SAGE Publications.

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.

Patton, M. Q. (1990). Qualitative evaluation and research methods (2nd ed.). Newberry Park: SAGE Publications.

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://dx.doi.org/10.14221/ajte.2002v27n2.1

Schmuck, R. A. (1997). Practical action research for change. Arlington Heights, IL: IRI/Skylight Training and Publishing.

Stake, R. E. (1994). Qualitative case studies. In N. K. Denzin & Y.S. Lincoln (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of qualitative research (3rd ed.) (pp. 443-457). Thousand Oaks: SAGE Publications.

Stringer, E. T. (2008). Action research in education (2nd ed.). New Jersey: Pearson.

Sweetland, S. R. & Hoy, W. K. (2000). School characteristics and educational outcomes: Toward an organisational model of student achievement in middle schools. Educational Administration Quarterly, 36(5), 703-729. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/00131610021969173

Tellis, W. (1997). Application of a case study methodology. The Qualitative Report, 3(3). http://www.nova.edu/ssss/QR/QR3-3/tellis2.html

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

Waters-Adams, S. (2006). Action research in education. Plymouth: University of Plymouth. http://www.edu.plymouth.ac.uk/RESINED/actionresearch/arhome.htm

Wong, E. D. (1993). Challenges confronting the researcher teacher: Conflicts of purpose and conduct. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association. Atlanta: GA. http://www.jstor.org/stable/1176021

Zeichner, K. M. (2003). Teacher research as professional development for P-12 educators in the USA. Educational Action Research, 11(2), 301-326. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09650790300200211

Please cite as: Hine, G. S. C. & Lavery, S. D. (2014). The importance of action research in teacher education programs. In Transformative, innovative and engaging. Proceedings of the 23rd Annual Teaching Learning Forum, 30-31 January 2014. Perth: The University of Western Australia. http://ctl.curtin.edu.au/professional_development/conferences/tlf/tlf2014/refereed/hine.html

© Copyright 2014 Gregory S. C. Hine and Shane D. Lavery. The authors assign to the TL Forum and not for profit educational institutions a non-exclusive licence to reproduce this article for personal use or for institutional teaching and learning purposes, in any format, provided that the article is used and cited in accordance with the usual academic conventions.