1
Action Research and Educational Practice
Amy Jones
Hillary Sterling
Dorianne Pollack
Sally Doshier
Carrie Yeknik
Deedee Falls
Karen Wunderlich
Stephen D. Lapan
Center for Excellence in Education
Northern Arizona University
Paper Presented at the Arizona Educational Research Organization
Annual Conference
Northern Arizona University
Flagstaff, Arizona
September 17, 1999
Action Research and Educational Practice
September 17, 1999
1
2
Introduction
In this paper we will examine action research in the context of educational practice
beginning with an introduction to the concept that will include a brief discussion of
classroom-based action research studies along with a working definition of this approach.
Next is an explanation of how action research relates to collaborative school reform.
Finally, a short review of validity issues will be presented.
Classroom-Based Studies
Action research is an investigative approach designed to improve practice. It
involves focusing on a question, concern or area of improvement, planning ways to
investigate the question, data gathering, and reflecting upon the data to determine how to
improve.
Action research approaches could be used by most practitioners including school
administrators, physicians, architects, lawyers, counselors, and other professionals who
have the desire and intent of increasing their professional development and who may
benefit from planned reflective inquiry. However, we have narrowed the discussion to
the field of education and particularly to classroom practice.
Action research has its focus on the actor (in this case, the teacher) who formulates
plans by recognizing a need for refinement or improvement of teaching in the classroom
setting. Further, this focus emphasizes the examination of the teacher herself (selfreflection) to determine which strategies are more or less effective in the teaching and
learning process. These reflections are not long-term as traditional experiments usually
are, but rather may be employed for a portion of one class period or for one or two
classes before the data is examined and revisions made. Non-instructional practice might
be examined as well. Too often when studies are carried out at the classroom level, they
are set up as several weeks or even semester- to year-long experiments that fail to provide
the teacher with the immediate feedback she needs to implement changes on a daily or
weekly basis. Also, too many classroom-based studies are planned and directed by
2
3
outsiders (most often academicians) leaving the teacher in the role of data gatherer rather
than that of reflective practitioner. These studies often overemphasize student outcomes
as well. Action research, on the other hand, lends itself to teachers as a learning process
and a means of improving teaching. Therefore, action research is characterized as
teacher-centered and teacher-directed research. The teacher-practitioner may or may not
collaborate with others in this endeavor, but the power of decision over design and
interpretation resides with the individual teacher-researcher.
Such action research efforts also might be part of an institutional plan for reform or
could be carried out with a few trusted colleagues who would study a teacher’s
professional practice in a way she chooses. The peer support and collegial feedback can
be requested, but is not required, and the specific nature and forms of action research
actions remain each teacher’s choice. The potential positive effects of large or small
collegial efforts and fresh sets of eyes offer new perspectives that an individual action
researcher may not have discovered. In any case, in classroom-based studies, teacherresearchers using action research can gain insights and make positive changes in their
practice.
Defining Action Research
In the contexts of classrooms from kindergarten to graduate school, the concept of
action research can be operationally defined as focusing, planning, acting, observing,
reflecting, and revising (Kemmis & McTaggart, 1982). Using this form of research in a
sixth grade classroom might mean that a teacher decides that her students are reluctant to
become verbally involved in classroom discussions (focusing). It is her belief (a
practitioner’s theory developed over time) that increased verbal involvement is tied to
student interest, motivation, positive attitude, and ultimately to improved learning or at
least an improved learning environment. Planning in the Kemmis and McTaggart model
refers to the teacher’s thoughts about how to try something different that may encourage
more student verbal involvement. Perhaps using more teacher silence might help or
requesting students to respond to each other’s ideas more often. She may also try to ask
3
4
questions that are more open-ended so that varied answers are possible, making the class
feel less like a recitation experience. The teacher must then decide what to try. Perhaps
she chooses two techniques keeping the number of “experiments” to a minimum so that
she can keep track of which of her strategies might cause desired outcomes.
Now, suppose the teacher tries teacher silence and open-ended questions and makes
an audio tape of the class (acting). She next listens to the tape writing down what
happens in the class when she attempts to use silence at different times. The teacherresearcher also writes down her questions and examines them to see if they are openended and whether or not using these seem to produce more student verbal involvement
(observing). By examining her findings, the action researcher determines the relative
effectiveness of her attempts to increase involvement and may decide that the open-ended
questions did obtain desired outcomes, but she may need to refine them even more. On
the other hand, she may determine that the use of silence was awkward and disturbed the
pace of the class. The teacher may decide to try this another way or give up on it. This
reflecting would then lead to revised planning which returns the teacher’s action
research cycle to focusing (actually refocusing) thus producing a new set of plans, acts,
observations, reflections, and revisions. Note that these cycles are quite close together,
usually recycling for a next new class or experiment. Also, it should be noted that
although the term “cycle” seems to be the most common one used for this kind of
“research in action,” the terms “spiral” or “spiraled cycles” designate growth, change,
and improvement. “Cycle” somehow sounds as if one is starting over in the same place.
The action researcher, of course, may make radical changes in the focus and refocus
process, therefore changing the focus to a different desired outcome such as improving
student critical thinking or making more effective use of small-group instruction.
Whatever the focus, however, the attention is primarily given to the study of teacher
actions (reflective practice) that may or may not result in an improved learning
environment.
This example best represents the working definitions offered by many who specialize
4
5
in action research theory and practice. Lewin (1948), for example, describes action
research as fact finding, conceptualization, action planning, implementation, evaluation,
and problem analysis. This sequence is much like the more recent Kemmis and
McTaggart (1982) characterization presented above, but does not include their idea of
revising which is essential to spiraling toward improvement. Johnson (1995) provides a
somewhat similar configuration for the approach as problem identification, systematic
data collection, reflection, analysis, data-driven action, and problem redefinition. Table 1
summarizes the action research process as described by Kemmis and McTaggart, Lewin,
and Johnson.
(Table 1 about here)
Johnson’s “problem redefinition” element is what Kemmis and McTaggart called
“planning revision,” but as noted is left out of Lewin’s scheme. On the other hand,
Johnson’s list includes “problem identification” instead of fact finding or focusing. The
inclusion of the problem identification component leads to the assumption that those who
conduct action research have problems or are in some kind of instructional trouble.
Action research is based on improving practice rather than fixing practice. Practitioners
would benefit from employing an action research approach regardless of current
instructional effectiveness. In addition, although a minor point, Johnson’s use of the term
“systematic” in the data collection phase which often conveys a quantitative orientation.
Rational and orderly data collection should suffice. The teacher-researcher should not be
restricted to the use of systems or prescriptive observational tools when interpretation and
judgment are more likely to explain how to make improvements.
The authors of this paper have their own version of the action research process which
is presented in Table 2.
(Table 2 about here)
5
6
As Table 2 shows, the action research spiral cycle begins with a question or concern.
A plan is then developed to investigate the identified question or concern. Next, data is
gathered for reflection by the teacher. The portion of the action research process that is
often taken for granted is reflection, which refers to the process by which a practitioner
makes sense of evidence (Winter, 1989). When re-planning, the teacher will change the
focus of the investigation based on the results of the action research. Furthermore, it is
expected that teaching will improve because of the action taken throughout the research.
Collaboration and School Reform
It is important to remember that action research is perhaps one of the best overall
strategies in working toward school reform (Kemmis, 1988), and very well could be a
superior strategy to current attempts at teacher evaluation (House & Lapan, 1997).
Action research for organizational development encourages professionals to research
and reflect on their practices for the purpose of improving teaching. Teachers are
researchers and teaching is viewed as research. The result of fostering such learning
communities are natural collaboration and regular learning with and from colleagues with
community and administrative support. In learning communities teachers engage in
action research with other colleagues. Two of the most crucial characteristics found in
environments structured for organizational development are collegiality and
experimentation. There are factors that improve chances for success with collaborative
action research. They would include: 1)common focus -- meaning that faculty tend to be
clear on school goals, protect what is important to them and hold high expectations as
school norms, 2) efficacy -- teachers feel like change is within their collective power, and
3) common cultural perceptions including an appreciation of leadership.
In this conception of collaboration, teachers would expect school leaders to be
supportive and committed to high expectations. Collaborative action research can be
seen as a phenomenon strongly mediated by the culture of the school. It can be said,
therefore, that the act of conducting research is not what makes the difference for
teachers and schools, it is the "transformational experience of working in an environment
6
7
that is steeped in professional discourse that moves these educators in a continuously
upward spiral in both their understandings and their practices" (Hargreaves, 1977, p.
187). Also, Hargreaves offers that institutionalizing collaborative action research can
cause the school culture to become transformational and that in turn can continuously
fuel meaningful educational change.
Action Research as Real Research
Coming of Age
Teachers serving as data gatherers can be traced back to the end of the 19th century
(Tomlinson, 1995), but the concept of teachers as researchers was introduced by Kurt
Lewin in the 1940s when he applied the term “action research” to teachers being at the
center of classroom investigations. This emphasis on practical reflection provided
legitimacy to this enterprise as a form of research, but lost favor during the 1950s in part
because “it seemed to consist of teaching teachers positive research methodology such as
elementary statistics and expecting them to produce studies” (House & Lapan, 1988, p.
84).
Renewed interest in this form of research was slow in coming in the US, although
some organized training was offered for teachers (e.g., Rogge, 1967). The idea really
took hold in Britain in the 1960s, however, with the curriculum reform movement
(Elliott, 1988). Indeed, much of the writing today on the topic refers to the British reform
and associated action research as the baseline for what would become a popular emphasis
in the 1990s. An examination of the AERA 1973 Annual Program, for example, reveals a
keen interest in educational change, but no direct reference is listed for action research.
By 1993 though, 18 listings for the topic can be found. Some suggest that this revival is
due, at least in part, to the less-than-relevant nature of traditional research as well as a
trend toward shifting the balance of power and decision making to the classroom teacher
(Tomlinson, 1995). While these potential causes may have contributed to action
7
8
research’s resurgence, it was the work of Schon (1983) that launched action research
primarily by demonstrating its legitimate place as a recognized form of research.
Schon, in his studies of successful practitioners, determined that the most effective
professionals engaged in what he calls “move-testing,” trying out small changes to obtain
desired effects, then trying again with an altered move as a new “experiment.” This kind
of reflective practice, Schon explained, is a form of practical research that has a direct
influence on the overall quality of a practitioner’s work. Here too, Schon distinguished
between experiments conducted by researchers as opposed to those carried out by
practitioners. House and Lapan (1988) interpret Schon’s characterization in this way:
Whereas the researcher tries to make the hypothesis
or findings conform to the world, the practitioner tries
to make the world conform to her intentions. The
practitioner tries to transform the world into something
that she likes better. By contrast, the researcher tries
to understand the world and would be severely chastised
if caught trying to change the world to obtain the results
desired. (p. 79)
Kemmis (1988) also has made a sound argument for action research as a recognized
form of investigation by contrasting three forms of research activities. He describes the
first as the “traditional empiricist-analytical” approach best recognized in the form of
experimental and causal-comparative studies. The second, which he labels “interpretive
research,” is characterized as involving stakeholders (e.g., teachers, students) in the
research process, but maintaining at least implicit control over design and interpretation
of studies. Teachers might engage in reflective practice and even make choices about
what to alter in their practice, but the academy retains control over standards (theory).
Case study research, ethnography, and evaluation research would be examples of the
interpretive school. The third, “critical educational research,” (see, for example,
Habermas, 1974) resembles interpretive approaches but differs by setting out to
emancipate the practitioner in that interests of the academy or other authoritative
ideologies are removed from the process. As Kemmis says, “while the first two forms
8
9
employ theories of change which are concretely realized in political relationships which
seek to bring practitioners’ practices into line with theorists’ theories (explicitly in the
case of empirical-analytic research and implicitly in the case of interpretive research),
critical research does not” (p. 48). This paradigm is best represented by action research as
reflective practice which in turn revolves around the concept of “praxis” (informed
action) where teachers study themselves as they go about their work, formulating their
own grounded theory inductively which they then experiment with as they move through
action research cycles and spirals. This research paradigm is contrasted with the other
two concepts of research and change which emphasize theory construction followed by
practitioner application.
Validity
While it is not the purpose of this paper to thoroughly examine validity issues in
action research, it is worth some attention since, at least among traditional empiricists,
these issues often become the first object of criticism. Even among those who are more
friendly toward reflective practice as a research form suspect it is harder to determine if
results can be trusted. After all, a teacher studying herself is certainly going to be a
prisoner to expectations and explicitly or implicitly held beliefs.
These and similar concerns have been addressed by interpretive researchers (see, for
example, Patton, 1990, pp. 460-494) who employ techniques such as triangulation and
member checking to validate their investigations. In much the same way, teacher
researchers can use multiple sources and multiple methods (triangulation) as well as
student and/or colleague review (triangulation and member checking) to increase the
trustworthiness of their findings. The use of such techniques is even more essential when
teachers remain on their own while conducting action research.
Offering these and other approaches for increasing validity will not dissuade many
critics from their objections since alternative paradigms represent alternative
epistemological perspectives. Comprehension of these alternatives is ordinarily not
9
10
enough; belief in their credibility must be accepted as well.
Conclusion
In summary, action research can be defined as research done on practice carried out
by the practitioner either individually or in collaboration with others with the intent of
improving one’s practice. A focus is determined, teaching is done, observations and
reflections are engaged in, and new plans are made for further study. In addition to
teaching, this kind of research may take place in other areas of instructional responsibility
such as grading, lesson plan and test construction, and individual conferencing.
Overall, this kind of research serves the purpose of providing credible data for
reflection and immediate action, especially when discrepancies are found between ideals
and observed actions. A teacher engages in action research to improve the teaching and
learning processes, not because something is wrong.
Finally, it is essential to ask the question: Is this extra expenditure of time and effort
really worth it in the long run? Some may argue the negative suggesting that this energy
could be used to further assist students and plan for instruction. But, those who have
engaged in reflective practice using action research methodology nearly always support
the concept in practice pointing out that they gain confidence in their teaching as well as
improve their practice. As Winter (1989) points out, having experience is one thing, but
learning from it is quite another. Taking it a step further, learning from experience can be
even more valuable if one uses carefully planned reflection as part of preparation and
action. As beginning teacher-researchers, we strongly believe that the action research
process is worthwhile and each of us has gained significant insights about our
professional work as a direct result of using this approach.
10
11
References
Elliott, J. (1988, April). Teachers as researchers: Implications for supervision and
teacher education . Paper presented at the annual convention of the American
Educational Research Association, New Orleans.
Habermas. J. (1974). Theory and practice. London: Heinemann.
Hargreaves, A. (1977). Collaborative action research for educational change.
Alexandria, VA: Sagor.
Johnson, B. M. (1995). Why conduct action research. Teaching and Change, 3(1), 90104.
House, E. R., & Lapan, S. D. (1988). The driver of the classroom: The teacher and
school reform. In R. Haskins & D. MaCrae (Eds.), Policies for America’s public schools:
Teachers, equity, & indicators (pp. 70-86). Norwood, NJ: Ablex Publishing.
House, E. R., & Lapan, S. D. (1997). Policy, productivity, and teacher evaluation. In
B. J. Biddle, T. Good, & I. F. Goodson (Eds.), International handbook of teachers and
teaching (pp. 623- 650). Dordrect, The Netherlands: Kluwer.
Kemmis, S. (1988). Action research. In J. P. Keeves (Ed.), Educational research,
methodology, and measurement: An international handbook (pp. 42-49). Oxford,
England: Pergamon Press.
Kemmis, S., & McTaggart, R. (1982). The action research planner. Victoria,
Australia: Deakin University Press.
Lewin, K. (1948). Resolving social conflicts: Selected papers on group dynamics.
New York: Harper Row.
11
12
Patton, M. Q. (1990). Qualitative evaluation and research methods (2nd ed.).
Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Rogge, W. M. (1967). The teacher is his own best change agent. Accent on Talent,
1(4), 1 & 4.
Schon, D. (1983). The reflective practitioner. New York: Basic Books.
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.
Winter, R. (1989). Learning from experience: Principles and practices in actionresearch. Philadelphia: Falmer Press.
Tables
Table 1: Three action research models.
Kemmis and McTaggart
Lewin
Johnson
focusing
fact finding
problem identification
planning
conceptualizing
systematic data collection
acting
action planning
reflection
observing
implementation
analysis
reflecting
evaluation
data-driven action
revising
problem analysis
problem re-identification
Note. From Lewin (1948), Kemmis & McTaggart (1982), and Johnson (1995)
12
13
Table 2: An action research model.
Authors
question/concern
plan
data collection
reflection
re-plan
About the Authors
Sally Doshier is a doctoral student at Northern Arizona University in Curriculum and
Instruction, is serving her third year as Assistant Clinical Professor in NAU’s Department
of Nursing, and is interested in technology and distance education issues.
Deedee Falls is currently at Carl Hayden High School in Phoenix where she teaches
Biology, Anatomy and Physiology in regular and honors sections. Presentations on
curriculum integration and performance assessment have been made at the national, state
and local levels. She has experience with block scheduling and team teaching and has
developed and implemented integrated curriculum with performance assessments using
an "issue-based" STS approach combining Biology, English and World History. She is a
doctoral student in curriculum and instruction at Northern Arizona University.
Amy Jones is a seventh grade life science teacher at Mount Elden Middle School in
Flagstaff, Arizona and is currently finishing a masters degree in secondary science
education at Northern Arizona University. In addition, she is an Interdisciplinary Faculty
Member for the CREATE Project.
Stephen D. Lapan is a professor of research and gifted education in the Center for
Excellence in Education at Northern Arizona University.
Dorianne Pollack is an elementary school principal in a small rural school just outside of
13
14
Flagstaff. Prior to her role as an administrator, she served as a teacher in an inner city
school in Phoenix and was a speech and language therapist prior to that. She is currently
enrolled in the Curriculum and Instruction Doctoral program at Northern Arizona
University.
Hillary Sterling currently works in the Science and Math Learning Center at Northern
Arizona University and is also working on her doctoral degree in Curriculum and
Instruction at Northern Arizona University.
Karen Wunderlich is an eighth grade science teacher at Mount Elden Middle School in
Flagstaff, Arizona. She is currently working on her doctoral degree in curriculum and
instruction at Northern Arizona University.
Carrie Yeknik is a teacher of gifted and talented students for Madison School District in
Phoenix, Arizona. She is currently working on her masters degree in gifted education at
Northern Arizona University.
Selected Suggested Readings
Brause, R. S., & Mayher, J. S. (Eds.) (1991). Search and re-search: What the
inquiring teacher needs to know . Philadelphia: Falmer Press.
Brubacher, J. W., Case, C. W., & Reagan, T. G. (1994). Becoming a reflective
educator: How to build a culture of inquiry in the schools. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin
Press.
Carr, W., & Kemmis, S. (1986). Becoming critical: Education, knowledge and action
research. London: Falmer Press.
Copeland, W. D., Birmingham, C., De LaCruz, E., & Lewin, B. (1993). The
reflective practitioner in teaching: Toward a research agenda. Teaching and Teacher
Education, 9(4), 347-359.
Elliott, J. (1991). Action research for educational change. Philadelphia: Open
University Press.
Frost, D. (1997). Reflective action planning for teachers: A guide to teacher-led
school and professional development. London: David Fulton Publishers.
Fullan, M. G. (1993). The new meaning of educational change. New York: Teachers
College Press.
Greenwood, D. J. (1999). Introduction to action research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
14
15
Hopkins, D. (1993). A teacher’s guide to classroom research (2nd ed.). Philadelphia:
Open University Press.
Hughes, L. (1999). Action research and practical inquiry: How can I meet the needs
of the high-ability student. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 22(3), 282-297.
Kochendorfer, L. (1994). Becoming a reflective practitioner. Washington, DC:
National Education Association.
Kochendorfer, L. (1994). Biology teachers as researchers. The American Biology
Teacher, 56(3), 135-137.
Leahy, R., & Corcoran, C. A. (1996). Encouraging reflective practitioners:
Connecting classroom to fieldwork. Journal of Research and Development in Education,
29(2), 104-114.
Long, J. S. (1994). If you’re teaching in circles, maybe you’ve got a good thing! Adult
Learning, 5(3), 29-31.
Noffke, S. E., & Stevenson, R. B. (Eds.) (1995). Educational action research. New
York: Teachers College Press.
Schon, D. A. (1983). The reflective practitioner: How professionals think in action.
New York: Basic Books.
Schon, D. A. (1987). Educating the reflective practitioner: Toward a new design for
teaching and learning in the professions. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
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.
Whyte. W. F. (Ed.) (1991). Participatory action research. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
15