Educational Action Research
ISSN: 0965-0792 (Print) 1747-5074 (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/reac20
Perceived effects of action research on teachers'
professional efficacy, inquiry mindsets and the
support they received while conducting projects to
intervene into student learning
Susan N. Seider & Paulette Lemma
To cite this article: Susan N. Seider & Paulette Lemma (2004) Perceived effects of action
research on teachers' professional efficacy, inquiry mindsets and the support they received while
conducting projects to intervene into student learning, Educational Action Research, 12:2, 219-238,
DOI: 10.1080/09650790400200246
To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/09650790400200246
Published online: 20 Dec 2006.
Submit your article to this journal
Article views: 7925
View related articles
Citing articles: 3 View citing articles
Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at
https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=reac20
Educational Action Research, Volume 12, Number 2, 2004
Perceived Effects of Action Research
on Teachers’ Professional Efficacy,
Inquiry Mindsets and the Support
They Received While Conducting
Projects to Intervene into Student
Learning
SUSAN N. SEIDER & PAULETTE LEMMA
Central Connecticut State University, USA
ABSTRACT Based on information gleaned from questionnaires and interviews
with teachers who engaged in action research as a capstone to their Master’s
program during the years 1992 through 2001, and on data from these teachers’
administrators and colleagues, six assertions are reported. (1) Teachers
sustained the ‘inquiry mindset’ gained while learning the processes associated
with conducting action research and continued using aspects of the process;
however, conducting new projects was less likely. (2) Teachers’ sense of
professional efficacy was enhanced, even after many years had intervened.
(3) Action research had immediate benefits for students but long-range benefits
were not determined. (4) Though challenging, teachers perceived conducting
action research was professionally valuable. (5) Teachers reported that
administrators, although supportive, played passive roles, whereas colleagues
were more collaborative during planning and implementing their projects.
(6) Teachers described school environments conducive to conducting action
research as ones that provide structures for teams to work on mutual goals
supported by strong administrative leadership.
As the landscape of K-12 schools changes, expectations for teachers to
engage in school reform and be accountable for student achievement
increases. Though not all schools currently offer teachers opportunities for
professional development through action research, some at least are
realising the professional and political implications of this type of sustained
systematic inquiry. The authors continue to hope that by learning the
processes and procedures of action research through their Master’s work,
219
Susan N. Seider & Paulette Lemma
teachers will then actively seek out ways to study how deliberate
implementation of instructional strategies will enhance student learning.
The authors remain committed to being connected to their students and
modeling action research processes that embody high expectations to help
influence teaching practices in K-12 schools. They also remain committed to
increasing the visibility of action research as a rigorous capstone for
Master’s level students.
As methods of teaching have evolved, particularly influenced by
theories of constructivism, interdisciplinary connections, reflective practices
and cooperative structures (Schön, 1987; Adler, 1991; Ross, 1992; Johnson
& Johnson, 1994), new patterns of effective teaching have become
necessary. Changing how we construct learning for students means altering
how we define what good teaching looks like and how it gets done.
Encouraging professional teachers to engage in sustained systematic
inquiry into their own practice seems a realistic and efficacious response to
the educational realities that challenge them on a daily basis. Teachers’
inquiry mindsets can be facilitated through teaching them the processes
and procedures of action research.
Action research, whether engaged in as an individual teacher, in
collaboration with several other professionals or as a school-wide endeavor,
centers on practitioners investigating a question and devising an informed
response to meet the challenges within their classrooms and schools. As
early as the 1940’s, Lewin and his colleagues engaged in collective problemsolving cycles for improving organisations (Lewin, 1947; Corey, 1953). The
term action research encapsulates a way to engage in disciplined inquiry
(research) in the context of focused efforts to improve the quality of an
organisation and its performance (action) (Calhoun, 1993). Teachers
engaged in the practice of action research deliberate about and tackle
problems substantively differently than they normally do outside the area of
systematic inquiry. Corey (1953) describes action research as ‘research that
is undertaken by educational practitioners because they believe that by so
doing they can make better decisions and engage in better actions’ (p. viii).
Macintyre (1991) describes action research as an ‘investigation, where, as a
result of rigorous self-appraisal of current practice, the researcher focuses
on a “problem” (or a topic or an issue which needs to be explained), and on
the basis of information (about the up-to-date state of the art, about the
people who will be involved and about the context), plans, implements, then
evaluates an action, then draws conclusions on the basis of findings’ (p. 1).
Despite questions previously posed by some about the rigor of action
research based on its immediate and contextually centered nature, the
process is now well recognised as a synergy that can reposition teachers to
articulate their knowledge, and understand the process of teaching and
learning (Freeman, 1998). As Hamilton asserted in 1993, ‘While previously
teachers’ work was examined with methodologies that silenced the studied,
disregarded the personal knowledge of the subject and strengthened the
notion that researchers produced the knowledge, now teachers’ research is
considered an integral part of the generation of knowledge about teaching’
220
PERCEIVED EFFECTS OF ACTION RESEARCH ON TEACHERS’ EFFICACY
(p. 79, cited in Hamilton, 1995). Teachers generate their own knowledge
through a process of identifying an area for investigation, proceeding into
specific phases of action based on data gathered and studying the action
through careful analysis. The teacher engaged in action research develops
new understandings (Elliott, 1988) and makes changes as the study
proceeds. The teacher’s formative evaluation interacts in a cyclic fashion
with the research; deliberate scrutiny becomes a regular part of the teaching
process.
Belcher & Vinson (1997) report on an initiative driven by a 1993 state
mandate by the Missouri Legislature that resulted in the passing of the
Outstanding Schools Act and provided funding to create nine regional
professional development centers (RPDC’s) throughout the state. The
Central Teacher’s Academy, a collaboration between Central Missouri State
University and the Central RPDC, was one of these centers; its mission
emphasised the belief that, for teachers to change their own work and
professional lives, teachers had to seek deeper understanding of educational
change and current issues. For 13 months, 19 teachers from 12 school
districts engaged in a program that promoted individual action research
projects. Results indicated that the Academy was helpful in promoting
positive change in teachers’ classroom behavior.
Moreover, some graduate programs now either offer an option or
require students to use action research as part of their undergraduate or
graduate degree programs. For example, Huber et al (2000) report on a
Master’s program that used a cohort model within a collaborative learning
community that incorporated, among other facets, action research. They
found that their approach prepared educators to assume leadership roles in
reforming education to meet today’s students’ complex needs. Neapolitan
(2000) conducted a study that examined the beliefs of 21 experienced
teachers who implemented individual action research projects as part of a
graduate degree program in teacher leadership. He found that teachers
believed that engaging in action research helped them grow personally and
professionally and enabled them to influence other teachers toward
improving curriculum and instruction.
Purpose of the Study
Action Research became an optional yearlong capstone project for graduate
students in a Master’s elementary and early childhood program in 1991 at
Central Connecticut State University (CCSU). For teachers in this capstone,
the purpose of action research was to engage them in inquiry processes
focused on real issues residing in their classrooms or schools that resulted
in research interventions to promote and sustain improvement in teaching
and learning. When viewed from the perspective of CCSU, graduate students
who engage in action research embody the missions of the Graduate School
and the School of Education and Professional Studies in that they develop
knowledge, skills and dispositions for making contributions to their field,
becoming leaders within their respective professions and influencing
221
Susan N. Seider & Paulette Lemma
educational and social policies at the very least, at the local level. Therefore,
it also was the department’s intent that once the teachers graduated with
their Master’s they would see the value of using action research, and
continue using these same processes and procedures in their future
professional work. It was strongly hoped that dispositions for reflection,
analytic introspection and viewing student data as sources for decision
making became firmly ingrained in their teaching practices.
Research questions incorporated in this study include:
• To what extent do teachers sustain the inquiry mindset gained through
learning the processes associated with action research, even after many
years have intervened?
• How does engaging in action research contribute to teachers’ professional
sense of efficacy, as measured by the impact on them and their teaching
strategies, as well as immediate and long-term effects on their students?
• To what extent do teachers offset the challenge of conducting action
research with the value they perceived?
• How do teachers perceive the school environment, with particular
emphasis on the level of support and cooperation from administrators
and colleagues, as a factor in conducting action research?
Previous baseline data about some of these teachers collected immediately
following the completion of their action research projects indicated that they
perceived a great effect on their teaching practices and their efficacy as
professionals (Lemma & Ferrara, 1997). Teachers reported increased
knowledge and skills in their targeted research area. There was evidence
that teachers who engaged in action research graduated with an
appreciation of the effects the action research process had on their teaching
and on student achievement. However, as the time increased from the initial
implementation of the action research project, it was not clear whether
teachers were sustaining the ‘inquiry mindset’ that might contribute to their
on-going development as professionals, that is, first, by implementing
specific processes of action research and, second, by proposing new action
research projects that would lead to new instructional changes in
subsequent years of teaching. Also not evident were the long-term effects on
their professional efficacy and the long-term value that they associated with
conducting action research as part of their Master’s program, nor the extent
to which school climate or environment factored into successfully
completing and sharing action research projects.
Methodology
Three data sets were part of this study. The first data set consisted of
surveys that were sent to all 40 previous students who completed the action
research capstone option as part of their Master’s program between the
years of 1992 and 2001. Thirty-four teachers responded to the survey,
resulting in an 85% return rate. (Of the 40 surveys sent, four were returned
due to invalid addresses.) The 20-item survey had a Likert scale with
222
PERCEIVED EFFECTS OF ACTION RESEARCH ON TEACHERS’ EFFICACY
designated response choices including strongly agree, agree, disagree and
strongly disagree. (Some surveys were returned in which respondents did
not answer certain items, or wrote comments indicating that it was not
applicable or they were unsure how to answer. All of these were
incorporated in the findings as no response or ‘NA’.) Frequencies and
percentages were calculated for each response of the survey. The survey was
purposefully designed to include multiple questions, randomly placed, to
reflect certain key ideas.
Focused interviews with the same set of teachers formed the second
data set. Teachers were invited to participate in these interviews, for which
they were paid a small stipend and 18 of the 34 teachers agreed. Groups of
teachers were organised based on when they could participate; all groups
were asked the same series of questions which were designed to expand
upon their survey responses. Responses were analysed for patterns and
qualitatively compared to survey data to provide more in-depth
understanding of the key ideas.
The third source of data comprised principals and colleagues of the
teachers who had been engaged in action research projects. Teachers who
returned the surveys were asked to identify names of colleagues and
administrators with whom they worked during the year they implemented
their action research and permission was requested to contact these
individuals. Teachers provided names and gave permission to contact 36
colleagues and administrators. Surveys were, therefore, sent to these 36
individuals and 28 surveys were returned, divided among 14 colleagues and
14 administrators. These surveys were designed in a format, similar to those
for the teachers, but consisted of only 10 questions; respondents were
asked to use designated response choices of strongly agree (SA), agree (A),
disagree (D) and strongly disagree (SD). (As with the teacher surveys, items
with no response or NA are also reported.) The survey data were examined
for frequencies and percentages of each response per question.
Limitations of the study include the following:
• A relatively small data set of experienced teachers was involved in the
study.
• All but two of the 34 teachers who participated in this study were
employed in different schools and, therefore, conducted individual
projects; in addition the remaining two teachers, although employed in
the same school, also conducted independent projects. Thus, this study
does not study the effect of teams of teachers working on joint action
research projects.
• Since the study is particularised to one university’s Master’s program,
results may not necessarily be generalisable to other institutions.
Findings from Data Sources: teacher surveys and interviews
Analysis centered on four key ideas. The key ideas included whether:
223
Susan N. Seider & Paulette Lemma
• teachers sustained the ‘inquiry mindset’ associated with conducting
action research projects;
• teachers perceived that conducting action research contributed to their
sense of professional efficacy;
• teachers offset the challenge of conducting action research with the value
of their action research project;
• teachers perceived the school climate/environment as a factor in
conducting action research.
Three survey questions were associated with key idea 1, of sustaining the
inquiry mindset. Specifically, teachers were asked whether they:
• had conducted additional action research projects;
• continued to informally incorporate some or all of the steps of action
research;
• currently reflected on their teaching practices.
Few teachers responded that they had conducted one or more additional
action research projects in their classroom since they graduated with their
MS degree. Only 11 teachers (32%) responded they had done so (12% SA;
21% A), whereas 21 teachers (62%) said they had not conducted additional
action research projects in their classroom (47% D; 15% SD).
The interviews substantiated these responses. Only two of the teachers
interviewed stated they had conducted new action research projects. One
had completed her original action research on science inquiry and then had
created a similar action research project on the inquiry process in
mathematics. The second teacher had a new action research project on the
READ Naturally program. Interestingly, she was continuing her studies at
this same university, but in a different advanced program.
Some evidence for why teachers do not sustain action research on
their own comes from two comments made during the interviews. One of the
participants stated, ‘No one encourages me’ and a second said, ‘It is very
intense and we are not required to’.
If teachers were not creating new action research projects, surveys and
interviews alike indicated that they were still incorporating some of the
steps of action research in their classroom (i.e., for this university: define a
problem statement to guide the inquiry of the project; use the professional
literature; design a strategy or intervention for change and a way to evaluate
the changes; examine findings; come to conclusions and self-assess the
process). Survey responses showed 8 teachers (24%) strongly agreed that
they were still incorporating action research processes and 19 (56%) agreed
that they did; 4 teachers (12%) said they did not and 2 (6%) had no
response.
The interviews added stronger evidence that most of the teachers were
implementing at least some steps of the action research process. Specifically
named was data collection by 13 teachers who were interviewed. For
example, one teacher, whose original action research project was the impact
of cross-grade reading on reading achievement in grade 5 students, now
224
PERCEIVED EFFECTS OF ACTION RESEARCH ON TEACHERS’ EFFICACY
used modified running records, as well as conferring with students, as part
of her data collection. ‘I look at specific writing pieces to analyze their
progress and see their weak spots. Through action research, I learned how
to collect information. Before, I did not know how’. One prior student was no
longer a classroom teacher but had become a literacy facilitator at her
school. In this position she reported that she still uses a literature review,
‘looking back at professional books and articles, and getting research
findings for the teachers’. She also stated that she ‘needs to collect all kinds
of data because it is my job to look at progress students are making’.
Additionally, she responded, ‘When I bring data to a meeting, it definitely
legitimises what I am saying’. Other teachers talked about ‘creating rubrics’,
‘using research’, ‘pre-tests to determine levels of proficiency followed by post
assessments’, ‘using anecdotal records’ and ‘being keen observers of
children’.
For the few teachers who were not implementing aspects of action
research, the following reasons were given:
I am in a different grade level.
I moved to a half day program.
I am not currently teaching.
Since reflection was considered an important component of developing an
inquiry mindset during the action research process, the researchers were
interested in knowing whether teachers continued to be reflective. From the
survey, a high percentage (11 teachers or 32% for SA; 18 or 53% for A)
reported that they were currently reflecting on their teaching practices,
similarly to how they did during their action research project. Only one
teacher (3%) responded that she did not currently reflect on her teaching
practice and four teachers (12%) answered ‘NA’.
The disposition for reflection was further examined during the
interviews. One teacher responded, ‘The whole reflection process ... it’s
made such a difference in my thinking as a teacher. We get caught up in the
do-do-do all the time and not enough thinking about why we’re doing, what
we’re doing, or the impact of what we did on children’.
A follow-up interview question asked: Were you always reflective or did
something occur that led you to become more reflective? At least five
participants claimed they were always reflective. However, many of the
teachers attributed making reflection more of a conscious effort as a result
of participating in the action research capstone. For example, a teacher
responded, ‘It was new thinking at the time. Seeing it as part of our role as
teachers was new then. You stepped out to be an observer and reflect’.
Another stated, ‘It [action research] got me to think more about what I’m
doing all the time and change things if they aren’t going well’. A third
teacher stated, ‘When we did our action research it was clear that we had to
step out of the lock step of our teaching role and become a critical analyzer
of what we were doing’ and a fourth, ‘I became more serious about it’. One
225
Susan N. Seider & Paulette Lemma
teacher summed up the experience by stating, ‘I always was reflective but
before I never thought it out in any depth. That was my reflection ... I just
said that was awful but never cared to think about why. Now I consider all
types of alternatives’.
When aggregated, data for key idea 1 revealed that teachers generally
do sustain the ‘inquiry mindset’ associated with conducting action research
projects. Only on the question regarding conducting new action research
projects was there a clear indication that this was not occurring.
Four questions were associated with key idea 2, the sense of
professional efficacy. Professional efficacy was defined in this study as: ‘a
belief in one’s own ability to bring about desired learning outcomes, often
correlated with student achievement, as a result of their teaching,
professional commitment and a willingness to try a variety of approaches’ ...
Specifically teachers were asked whether conducting their own action
research projects had:
• a positive professional impact on them;
• led them to continue using the teaching strategies associated with their
action research projects in their classrooms;
• a positive impact on the participants involved in the study;
• great worth in terms of the long-term benefits for their students.
Analysis of the data showed 14 teachers (41%) who responded strongly
agree and seven teachers (21%) who responded agree that engaging in their
action research project had a positive professional impact on them. None of
the teachers disagreed, but 13 teachers (38%) did not respond. However,
during the interviews, all of the participants voiced strong agreement. Five
of the 18 explained that they gained more confidence in their roles as
teachers. Six said they saw themselves as ‘more professional’ as a result of
engaging in action research. One participant offered the following, ‘After the
year of the action research course, I had the ability to hook into something,
effect change. It made all the efforts worthwhile to see real learning
outcomes’. Almost all of the participants said it changed them one way or
another.
When asked whether they were still implementing strategies associated
with their action research projects in their classrooms, a high percentage
(nine teachers or 26% for SA and 17 teachers or 50% for A) responded that
they were. Only three teachers (9%) disagreed; one person strongly
disagreed and four respondents (12%) did not respond.
All but one of the interviewed participants who were currently teaching
said that they had maintained the teaching strategies that were part of their
projects, albeit with some modifications. (The one teacher who did not
continue to use her action research strategies, i.e. new strategies for
teaching geography, indicated that she tried ‘to do bits and pieces but it did
not have the same effect’. She claimed that she fell into old patterns when
‘no one boosted her up’.) When modifications were made, they were based
on time factors, change of grade levels, student needs, availability of
resources – materials and human – and curriculum changes. One teacher
226
PERCEIVED EFFECTS OF ACTION RESEARCH ON TEACHERS’ EFFICACY
who had implemented the use of multicultural literature into her first grade
classroom reported still using these materials in her reading curriculum,
but having modified their use to be more discriminating in what she
selected. Nonetheless, some of the teachers continued their actual projects,
such as using portfolios, reading recovery, guided reading, flexible reading
groups, arts-based literature, inquiry-based learning and an early
intervention program.
Lastly, teachers were asked about the positive impact on the students
who were involved in their action research projects. A high percentage (14
teachers or 41% for SA, 20 teachers or 59% for A) reported that the action
research had a positive impact on the participants (students) involved in the
study. No one disagreed with or did not respond to this statement. However,
a decline occurred when teachers were asked if the action research had
great worth in terms of the long term benefits for their students; 11 teachers
(32%) responded SA; 18 teachers (53%) responded agree; one teacher (3%)
disagreed; no teachers strongly disagreed; and four teachers (12%) had no
response.
Interviews resulted in similar outcomes. Teachers claimed that positive
effects were discerned for classroom students during the year of the actual
implementation of the action research project. For example, one teacher
claimed that because her project on multicultural literacy exposed students
to different points of view, they learned ‘another way to think about things’.
Another teacher whose project was on parent involvement reported
increased parent interaction ‘throughout the time their children were in
[her] classroom’. Still another teacher’s project on pairing her 5th graders to
act as reading tutors with younger children resulted in literacy gains for
both sets of students.
However, teachers had difficulty predicting long-term benefits. One
teacher did suggest that her students ‘were more prepared with literacy for
the next year and beyond’ by relating a story about how the parents of her
former second grader were convinced that their child ‘was able to talk at his
grandpa’s funeral due to the skills he had learned in her classroom’. A
second teacher, who directed the accreditation process for the day care
center where she worked, explained that the center was recently reaccredited. ‘We changed from seeing that the accreditation process was not
worth doing to understanding its worth ... the accreditation process has
made it better for the staff and the students’. Nonetheless, teachers more
often than not shared the common sentiments, ‘I wish I had some way to
know’ and ‘I hope it did’.
When data were compared for all four questions in key idea 2, it
appeared that teachers perceived conducting action research as
contributing to their sense of professional efficacy. They saw it as having a
professional impact on them, as measured by them gaining confidence and
feeling more professional. They also continued to incorporate teaching
strategies of their action research projects. Although perceptions of longterm effects on their students were not evident, they were able to report
immediate effects on the learners at the time of their projects.
227
Susan N. Seider & Paulette Lemma
Two questions were associated with key idea 3: challenge vs value.
These gauged the perceived value of the teachers’ action research studies as
counterbalanced against the challenge they perceived at the time they were
being conducted. Specifically, teachers were asked whether they:
• perceived conducting action research projects as a capstone to the
Master’s degree as challenging;
• perceived conducting an action research project as a capstone to the
Master’s degree as professionally worthwhile.
All the teachers surveyed felt that conducting their action research project
as a capstone requirement for their Master’s degree was challenging with 33
of 34 teachers strongly agreeing (97%) and one agreeing. At the same time,
27 teachers (79%) surveyed strongly agreed and seven (21%) agreed that
conducting action research projects as a capstone requirement was
worthwhile to them professionally.
Interview data corroborated survey results. All of the teachers agreed
that action research was challenging. They cited the following factors for
what contributed to the challenge:
•
•
•
•
•
‘setting up the problem’ (four teachers);
‘time commitment’(five teachers);
‘learning how to do the research at the university library’ (five teachers);
‘learning how to use new technology’ (six teachers);
‘writing and rewriting; writing concisely’ (six teachers).
Individual teachers cited other factors such as:
refining what I did in my classroom to the ‘nth’ degree.
working with the professor was at first intimidating but then I got
over it.
getting from the research literature what was important for the
project and not making it so broad; also understanding that you
had to accept that it might not come out positive [the way you
wanted it to].
there were so many different parts [of the project] and pulling it
all together.
not knowing where you would end up.
feeling ill-prepared with the statistics.
opening yourself up for criticism after teaching for 32 years.
Anecdotal interview data revealed that teachers considered conducting
action research projects as a capstone to the Master’s degree professionally
228
PERCEIVED EFFECTS OF ACTION RESEARCH ON TEACHERS’ EFFICACY
worthwhile. The same teacher of 32 years remarked, ‘It was a shot in the
arm because it was rejuvenating; it was good to go through the process’.
Other teachers also valued this type of capstone as revealed in the following
comments:
the action research project helps you internalise a lot more; it
was inspiring.
I could do my action research project while I was teaching; it was
practical.
It changed my way of teaching.
Two teachers talked about the guidance they received through the process
of conducting action research: ‘You held our hands and walked us through
[it] every step of the way. If we couldn’t find information you helped us with
that; it was a rewarding challenge and a professional growth challenge that
we needed’. One teacher summed up the value by saying ‘It’s a great thingit brings reflection and research to educators’.
Therefore, both survey and interview data suggest that teachers
strongly agreed that conducting action research was indeed challenging, but
also worthwhile.
Five questions were associated with key idea 4, school
climate/environment as a factor in conducting action research. Specifically,
teachers were asked whether:
• they shared their action research with others, such as administrators
and colleagues;
• the school administrator was supportive;
• conducting their action research project contributed to collaboration and
cooperation between themselves and their school colleagues;
• the school environment that existed (at the time of conducting the
project) was conducive to their success;
• the current climate of their school would be conducive to conducting
action research.
Forty-one per cent (14 surveyed teachers) strongly agreed that they had
shared their action research project with others (such as colleagues or
administrators), 18 teachers (53%) agreed, no teachers disagreed, one
teacher (3%) strongly disagreed and one teacher (3%) responded ‘NA’. In the
interviews, 13 teachers remarked that they had shared their research with
same grade teachers or other close colleagues while only six reported
sharing with the principal. One teacher said that her principal used her
action research project for ‘ammunition to go to the new superintendent for
data to help make reading recovery more established in the school district’.
Four others involved curriculum or media specialists, sometimes going to
them for resources or help. Individual teachers also reported sharing with
an assistant superintendent, with Chapter I and ESL tutors, or with a
professor. Interestingly, one teacher claimed that jealousy and politics were
229
Susan N. Seider & Paulette Lemma
responsible for her not involving others in her project, and another said
that, due to a general lack of interest, she did not share.
To the question that asked teachers whether the school administrator
was supportive, 16 teachers (47%) strongly agreed with this statement, 11
teachers (32%) agreed, three teachers (9%) disagreed, two teachers (6%)
strongly disagreed and two teachers (6%) responded ‘NA’.
When asked during the interviews to describe the type of
administrative support that existed when they conducted their action
research project, eight teachers indicated they received strong support. Two
teachers stated their principal provided resources or materials to support
their projects. Another teacher mentioned that their administrator gave
them time to share aspects of their project with other teachers.
Administrative support for action research was often correlated with
teachers’ perceptions of administrative encouragement for innovative
practices. However, three teachers indicated a lack of administrative
support, giving statements such as:
I had more support from the school staff.
The administrator was not supportive.
It didn’t seem to have an impact on the principal.
Survey responses to the question on whether conducting action research
contributed to collaboration and cooperation between themselves and their
school colleagues yielded 32% (11 teachers) who strongly agreed, 41% (14
teachers) who agreed, 21% (seven teachers) who disagreed, 3% (one teacher)
who strongly disagreed and 3% (one teacher) who indicated no response.
From the interviews, it was found that cooperation resulted when
some teachers conducted their projects along with colleagues in the same
grade level:
My grade partners shared similar strategies and we bounced
ideas off each other.
It helped us [grade partners] work together and create lesson
plans and units for guided reading.
It helped in implementing centers across the grade level.
It helped my partners and me apply a research protocol as we
[went] through the math program.
Others had colleagues collect data on the strategies they were implementing
from which they later measured effects. Collaboration also was evident
through this team approach, especially when the research activities evolved
into other teaching practices. One teacher remarked that some of her
230
PERCEIVED EFFECTS OF ACTION RESEARCH ON TEACHERS’ EFFICACY
teaching colleagues saw her as a source of knowledge and ‘came to me as an
expert’.
Teachers were asked if they considered the school environment that
existed at the time they conducted their action research was conducive to
their success. Survey data showed that 13 teachers (38%) strongly agreed,
17 teachers (50%) agreed, two teachers (6%) disagreed, no teachers strongly
disagreed and two teachers (6%) responded ‘NA’. Interview responses
corroborated that, for most of these teachers, there was a positive
environment that helped them to be successful. However, only one physical
education teacher worked on a literacy action research project that was
being implemented school-wide, thereby making everyone concerned
committed to the project’s success. For most teachers, the positive climate
did not extend to the whole school, but was limited to interactions with
certain colleagues and, more often than not, as indicated above, restricted
to their specific grade level.
The last question probed into their current school climate. Forty-one
per cent of teachers (14 teachers) strongly agreed that their current school
climate would be conducive to conducting action research; 38% (13
teachers) agreed; 3% (one teacher) disagreed; 3% (one teacher) strongly
disagreed and 15% (five teachers) had no response to this statement.
Although there is no data from the interviews to indicate whether current
school climate would be conducive to conducting action research, there is
some evidence that action research is increasingly becoming an option for
teachers’ professional development. For example, a teacher mentioned that
in the current year she and two of her colleagues were ‘doing goals together’.
One teacher found it ‘interesting that in this district action research was
becoming a “buzz word”’. She stated that the district ‘wants to involve
school improvement teams in conducting action research’. Another teacher
said that her school now ‘would be supportive because the new
administrator is research-oriented’. However, she went on to explain that
‘even though the district offers action research as a choice for professional
growth’, she did not choose to do it because ‘it was loosely put together with
no structure to it’. Another teacher also indicated, that her ‘administration
is moving more that way [towards action research] due to accountability’.
However, she guardedly stated that she ‘could not imagine any school based
person being a guiding factor’, i.e. being helpful or supportive as the
professors were during the time she implemented her action research
project. She added, ‘We need a team of people to process with us instead of
doing it all on our own’.
During the interviews a separate question was asked on the kind of
school climate that supports the types of changes that action research
fosters. Data from this question were categorised into how administrators
and colleagues would promote a school climate for action research.
Teachers perceived that administrators would promote positive school
climates by giving teachers ‘time to do things’ and ‘observing, giving
suggestions, and acknowledging what teachers have done’. One teacher saw
this as principals viewing teachers as professionals, as well as researchers.
231
Susan N. Seider & Paulette Lemma
Inquiry and leadership were also perceived as desirable. ‘Having an
administrator as an educational leader who wants to explore new ideas
would be helpful ... having an atmosphere of inquiry’. Equally desirable was
having a trusting administrator who considered the professional
background of teachers and allowed them to grow as individuals.
The teachers wanted colleagues who would work as a team, share,
listen to others’ ideas and encourage them to try new strategies. They also
wanted colleagues who were willing to consider alternative practices for the
students in their individual classrooms. Their colleagues would promote a
school climate that is conducive to action research by learning together and
supporting each other in a collaborative, rather than competitive
atmosphere. Overall, teachers wanted an atmosphere in which they could
feel comfortable taking risks without threat of intimidation.
When data are compared for questions related to key idea 4, there is
some evidence that teachers perceived the school climate/environment as a
factor in successfully conducting their action research projects. Teachers, to
a great extent, agreed that they shared their action research projects, albeit
more with colleagues than with administrators. They also indicated they
had general support from administrators, but more actual collaboration
from teachers, especially those in the same grade level. Moreover, this same
finding was extended to when the school environment was discussed as a
factor to successfully completing their research projects. In other words, a
positive environment within the same grade level was perceived as
contributing to their success. Their descriptions of the kind of school
environment that would support educational changes associated with action
research revealed administrators who would provide inquiry-based
leadership for teacher learning and development and schools that would
provide structures for time to work together in teams.
Findings: colleague and administrator surveys
Analysis of surveys sent to colleagues and administrators was used to
compare their responses with that of the teachers, specifically on
professional efficacy and on their awareness of the action research projects
that were occurring in their schools. Surveys were also used to determine
their perceptions on whether conducting action research projects positively
affected collegial relationships in their schools and whether they themselves
had conducted action research within the last 5 years. No interviews were
conducted with this group.
Two questions were associated with the key idea of professional
efficacy. Respondents were asked to respond to two questions specifically
related to the teachers they knew in the study who had conducted action
research projects:
• action research
positively affected
• action research
positively affected
232
projects conducted in these teachers’ classrooms
their professional efficacy;
projects conducted in these teachers’ classrooms
their teaching strategies.
PERCEIVED EFFECTS OF ACTION RESEARCH ON TEACHERS’ EFFICACY
Analysis of data on question one related to professional efficacy of the
specific teachers in the study revealed that 66% (19 colleagues and
administrators combined), strongly agreed that the professional efficacy of
teachers who had engaged in action research projects was positively
affected, 28% (eight colleagues and administrators) agreed, none disagreed
or strongly disagreed, and 3% (one colleague or administrator) had no
response.
Similarly, 66% (19 colleagues and administrators) strongly agreed that
these teachers’ action research projects positively affected their teaching
strategies, 28% agreed (eight colleagues and administrators), none disagreed
or strongly disagreed, and 3% (one colleague or administrator) indicated
‘NA’.
When all data for key idea one are combined, colleagues and
administrators felt that conducting action research projects positively
affected professional efficacy as measured by student achievement and
improved teaching strategies, both when reporting on the specific teachers
in the study and generally for all others who engage in action research.
Two items were used to determine awareness of the action research
projects that were occurring in their schools:
• respondents were aware of the steps being followed by the teachers who
were conducting the action research project in their classrooms;
• respondents were continuously informed about the action research steps
that were being followed by the teachers who were conducting the action
research project in their classrooms.
For the statement asking if respondents were aware of the steps being
followed by the teachers who were conducting action research projects in
their classrooms, 55% (16 respondents) strongly agreed, 38% (11
respondents) agreed, none disagreed or strongly disagreed, and 3% (one
respondent) indicated ‘NA’.
Thirty-four per cent (10 respondents) strongly agreed that they were
continuously informed about the steps that were being followed by the
teacher engaged in the action research project, 55% (16 respondents) agreed
none disagreed or strongly disagreed, and 7% (two respondents) did not
respond to this statement.
Overall, all of the colleagues and administrators reported that they
were keenly aware of the action research project being conducted at their
schools by the teachers in the surveys.
To the survey question that asked whether the action research projects
that teachers conducted in their classrooms positively affected collegial
relationships in their schools, 41% (12 respondents) strongly agreed, 41%
(12 respondents) agreed, 3% (one respondent) disagreed, none strongly
disagreed, and 10% (3 respondents) responded ‘NA’.
When asked whether administrators and colleagues had themselves
engaged in action research within the last 5 years, fewer responded
affirmatively; 38% (11 respondents) strongly agreed, 21% (six respondents)
233
Susan N. Seider & Paulette Lemma
agreed, 7% (two respondents) disagreed, 3% (one respondent) strongly
disagreed, and 28% (eight respondents) responded ‘NA’ for this statement.
Conclusions
Data analysis indicated that conducting action research projects had a
positive professional impact on teachers and an even greater influence on
their teaching strategies, so much so that most continued to implement the
teaching strategies from their action research projects. Immediate benefits
for students were perceived by almost all of the teachers, indicating that
action research has the potential to effect positive changes in the classroom,
particularly when teachers implement research-based strategies to improve
student achievement. However, fewer teachers could report long-term
benefits for their students as a result of their interventions. Perhaps this is
due to teachers being unable to formally track students’ progress after they
worked with them. Nevertheless, it was clear that action research
contributed to teachers’ professional efficacy with specific regard to the
probability of increasing student achievement and the belief in their own
ability to bring about desired learning outcomes. Indeed, an integral part of
professional efficacy is the belief in one’s ability to bring about positive
changes in student learning, professional commitment and willingness to
try a variety of approaches. All of these attributes seemed to be associated
with those engaged in action research. Colleagues and administrators of
these teachers also seemed to strongly support the notion that teachers
engaged in action research enhanced their professional efficacy and that
student achievement was improved.
The majority of teachers still sustained the inquiry mindset associated
with conducting action research projects. They reported reflecting on their
practices and informally implementing aspects of the action research
process gained through learning the processes during their Master’s
capstone project, even after many years had intervened.
However, only a few teachers reported that they began new action
research projects since the original one had been conducted. Nonetheless,
through interview data, it appears that action research is becoming an
option for teachers’ professional development, which may explain survey
data in which 79% of the teachers reported that the current school climate
would be conducive to conducting new action research projects. Still,
interviewed teachers were cautious in agreeing to conduct further action
research projects because they were skeptical of the support and structure
they would be given. When compared to the percentage of administrators
and colleagues (59%) who reported that they had actually engaged in action
research within the last 5 years, some reasons for teachers’ skepticism may
become evident. Since a good portion of the colleagues and administrative
staff had not personally implemented action research, it is reasonable to
surmise that teachers would envision not receiving the guidance necessary
for action research. It certainly is difficult for those who have not had prior
experience with action research to facilitate guiding and modeling the
234
PERCEIVED EFFECTS OF ACTION RESEARCH ON TEACHERS’ EFFICACY
processes for those who are attempting to implement it. In looking to future
scenarios for conducting action research, teachers desired positive school
climates that provided structures and time for teachers to work together as
professionals.
Some degree of support provided from administrators was evident
through teacher responses. This result implied that teachers felt the
atmosphere of the school was one that allowed them to take risks and try
new interventions without the threat of censure or ridicule. However, the
exact nature of the role the administrator played seemed to be more passive
than active for most teachers in the study. In addition, although a relatively
high percentage (93%) of surveyed administrators and colleagues said that
action research positively affected teachers’ collegial relationships, interview
data revealed more details on these relationships. Teachers were less likely
to agree to this extent. They reported that colleagues in the same grade level
primarily played collaborative roles as the action research projects were
conducted. Teachers may have shared their successes and challenges, and
sought opinions, ideas or resources from others, but many actually worked
through the projects on their own.
All teachers agreed that conducting their action research projects was
both challenging and worthwhile to them professionally. To be successful,
these teachers needed to demonstrate conceptual thinking and
organisational skills that enabled them to successfully develop their
research questions, implement and evaluate the methods planned to
intervene and make changes for student learning. They also needed to
articulate clearly and convey (which for some included ongoing drafts) the
meaning of their projects. At the same time, they were negotiating the
complex demands of intersecting family and professional commitments with
these academic obligations. Characterising this experience as challenging is
an understatement. Nonetheless, all teachers felt that the value of
conducting action research projects offset this challenge.
Summary
Teachers who conducted action research projects for their capstone
requirement at this university followed a rigorous protocol involving a series
of specifically prescribed steps. Although some flexibility based on a
particular context was possible, students were encouraged to follow the
steps within a typical cyclical action research pattern. This requirement
obligated the teachers to fit the action research requirements into their
schools and classrooms. Results of the study indicated they were able to do
this in satisfactory ways.
Findings for this study revealed that teachers involved in action
research projects as part of their graduate work requirements saw this work
as professionally and personally worthwhile. To this degree, the
department’s assumption that teachers would see value in conducting
action research was realized, but perhaps only during the capstone
semesters and the Master’s program. It seems that once they completed
235
Susan N. Seider & Paulette Lemma
their university requirements, only some teachers continued to initiate
additional action research projects. On the other hand, most teachers did
continue to use aspects of action research, including using student data to
drive their instructional decisions, as well as demonstrating dispositions for
reflection.
Although there are indications that teachers sustain the inquiry
mindset, we surmise that whether teachers continue to use action research
as part of normal practice may be determined by several factors. Teachers
need supportive and systemic school and administrative environments that
sanction this work, for example, by providing material resources and
sufficient time for searching the literature and planning interventions. The
environments should promote cooperation and collaboration among
colleagues and substantive opportunities for professional reflection.
Certainly, teachers in this study recognised that, in order for action
research to influence educational reform in the complex and dynamic
environment of schools, they would require strong leadership and would
prefer collaborative teacher teams configured into on-site support groups
(Sagor, 1991). As Liston & Zeichner (1990) contend, if school change is to
occur, teacher action researchers need a supportive context for the shared
inquiry of a group involved in documenting and reflecting on the effects of
strategic actions over a period of time. Until such time that schools are
structured as such, it is unlikely that teachers will view action research as
part of their daily teaching practices.
Despite limitations that impede these practices, we continue to hope
that action research processes will become increasingly incorporated into
school norms. We would hope that in the interest of effecting vital student
achievement, teachers pursue ways to engage in research-based
collaborative work and advocate for school policies that embrace the
principles and procedures of action research. As university instructors we
remain committed to teaching and modeling action research processes that
embody rigor and high expectations for the successful design and
completion of action research projects. We also need to continue to provide
focused time and attention both to the class as a whole and to the
individual students. Light (2001) reminds us that, ‘faculty members who
have an especially big impact are those who help students make
connections between a serious curriculum, on the one hand, and the
students’ personal lives, values, and experiences, on the other’ (p. 110). By
embracing these commitments, the link between the university and K-12
schools is strengthened as are our visibility and credibility within the
university community, particularly through our students’ project
presentations at university research forums. We recognise that more
research needs to be done on school environments that enable teachers to
realise the professional and practical benefits of conducting action research
and what universities can do to contribute to preparing teachers for their
roles as researchers.
This study contributes to our understanding of how teacher-initiated
action research can influence teaching and learning in classrooms. In
236
PERCEIVED EFFECTS OF ACTION RESEARCH ON TEACHERS’ EFFICACY
particular, it provides further evidence about the power of teachers to effect
positive changes within the context of their classrooms and schools if they
are given opportunities to design and implement research interventions for
the purpose of improving teaching and learning. Teachers who develop a
professional disposition for identifying educational issues, and
systematically go about trying to intervene and promote student learning
elevate their professional practice. The resulting benefits for learners may be
invaluable as ‘it allows teachers and pupils to be active change agents, not
simply participant observers’ (Bryant, 1996, as cited in Macintyre, 2000, p.
xii). Action research, therefore, can be a positive step toward building
conceptual frameworks for identifying specific focal areas and creating
effective solutions based on sound educational research that may over time,
contribute to teachers’ professional efficacy.
Correspondence
Susan N. Seider, Central Connecticut State University, 1615 Stanley Street,
New Britain, CT 06050, USA (seider@ccsu.edu).
References
Adler, S. (1991) The Reflective Practitioner and the Curriculum of Teacher Education,
Journal of Education for Teaching, 17(2), pp. 139-150.
Belcher, C. & Vinson, G. (1997) The Teachers’ Academy: a collaborative approach to
preparing teachers for leadership roles in the public schools, paper presented at
the Summer Workshop of the Association of Teacher Educators, Las Vegas, 2-6
August.
Calhoun, E.F. (1993) Action Research: three approaches, Educational Leadership,
51(2), pp. 62-65.
Corey, S.M. (1953) Action Research to Improve School Practices. New York: Teachers
College Press.
Elliott, J. (1988) Teachers as Researchers: implications for supervision and teacher
education, paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational
Research Association, New Orleans, 5-9 April.
Freeman, D. (1998) Doing Teacher Research: from inquiry to understanding. Pacific
Grove: Heinle & Heinle.
Hamilton, M.L. (1995) Relevant Readings in Action Research, Action in Teacher
Education, XVI(4), pp. 79-81.
Huber, T., Franklin, J., Baergen, S., et al (2000) Teachers as Researchers and
Reformers: a site-based Master of Education Program in Curriculum &
Instruction; critical pedagogy in practice and research, paper presented at the
American Association of Colleges for Teacher Education, Chicago, 26-29
February.
Johnson, D. & Johnson, R. (1994) Learning Together and Alone: cooperative,
competitive, and individualistic learning. Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
237
Susan N. Seider & Paulette Lemma
Lemma, P. & Ferrara, M. (1997) Action Research in Teacher Education: comparison
and contrast from two perspectives, paper presented at the American
Educational Research Association, Chicago, 24-28 March.
Lewin, K. (1947) Group Decisions and Social Change, in T.M. Newcomb &
E.L. Hartley (Eds) Readings in Social Psychology. New York: Henry Holt.
Light, R.J. (2001) Making the Most of College: students speak their minds. Cambridge,
MA: Harvard University Press.
Liston, D.P. & Zeichner, K.M. (1990) Reflective Teaching and Action Research in
Preservice Teacher Education, Journal of Education for Teaching, 16,
pp. 235-255.
Macintyre, C. (1991) Let’s Find Why: a practical guide to action research in schools.
Edinburgh: Moray House.
Macintyre, C. (2000) The Art of Action Research in the Classroom. London: David
Fulton.
Neapolitan, J.E. (2000) What Do Teachers Believe about Action Research as
Mechanism for Change? paper presented at the Association of Teacher
Educators, Orlando, 12-16 February.
Ross, W. (1992) Teacher Personal Theorizing and Reflective Practice in Teacher
Education, in E.W. Ross, J.C. Cornett & G. McCutcheon (Eds) Teacher Personal
Theorizing: connecting curriculum practice, theory, and research. Albany: State
University of New York Press.
Sagor, R. (1991) What Project LEARN Reveals about Collaborative Action Research,
Educational Leadership, 48(6), pp. 6-10.
Schön, D. (1987) Educating the Reflective Practitioner: toward a new design for
teaching and learning in the professions. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
238