Action research in action: Paper 3 as an example

GU YongqiVictoria University of Wellington

peter.gu@vuw.ac.nz

• Koutselini, M. (2008). Participatory teacher development at schools: Processes and issues. Action Research, 6(1), 29-48.

In this whole class session…

• Part 1: Your interpretation of paper 3• Part 2: Looking for action research

features in paper 3• Part 3: Writing up action research

Part 1

Your interpretation of paper 3

1. What are the questions?2. Why is the study necessary?3. How is the study described in

this paper?4. （ Purpose, participants,

procedures, dada analysis? ）5. What are the conceptual

changes in the teachers?

Research questions

1. What reflective processes will promote teacher self-evaluation, understanding and development?

2. How do teachers implicitly understand school-based curriculum development?

3. How do teachers conceptualise their role as curriculum developers?

4. How can teachers understand and value the processes of reflective development?

Part 2

Looking for action research features in paper 3

Action research in simple terms

The action research cycle

Paper 3: the aim of the studyWhat conception changes?

• From traditional instrumental, positivist paradigm of teacher development where expertise about what to teach and how to teach comes from external sources and is imposed upon teachers thru teacher training

• To the reflective paradigm of teacher development or teacher empowerment, where teachers work together and think for themselves

Participants

• 16 teachers, one inspector, 2 principals• Researchers (author + 3 graduate students)

Reflection was done through

• Weekly meetings. 3 rounds of meetings presented.

• During these meetings, participants discussed– Problems– Ideas– Actions– Reflections– New action

• Diary of events and thoughts after each meeting

Three cycles of meetings as a way to bring about desired changes

• Cycle 1 (3 meetings): focusing on collaborative problem identification– Problem: Ts lack of trust for each other– Solution: small grp discussion and ethos building

• Cycle 2 (4 meetings): focusing on collaborative decision making and planning for action– Problem: Ts prefer to be told what to do

• Cycle 3 (4 meetings): focusing on planning further action

Action research features • Participant involvement

– Who were the researchers? Who were the agents of action?– Whose purposes? whose actions? Whose reflections? For whose improvement?

• Problem identification– What was the research problem(s)? – Who had these problems and needed solution?

• Dynamic, cyclical process– What exactly was done? Step by step procedures?

• Targeted changes– What were the desired changes as a result of critical action and reflection?– What monitoring/evaluative procedures were involved?– To what extent was the problem resolved?

• Next round of actions and reflections– What further actions were proposed?

• Is this a typical action research project? Why or why not?

Two action research projects in one

Purpose of Action research project

Researcher participants

To empower teachers by bringing about changes in conceptions of teaching and learning

Other participants (teachers, principals, and inspector)

To reflect on their own teaching practices and improve their teaching

The “participant” outsider: a nagging issue with AR

“However much the rhetoric changes to participation, participatory research, community involvement and the like, at the end of the day there is still an outsider seeking to change things... who the outsider is may change but the relation is the same. A stronger person wants to change things for a person who is weaker. From this paternal trap there is no complete escape.”

Chambers 1983

Part 3

Writing up action research

Writing up action research: The role of theories

• Why theory?• What theoretical framework was used in

this report?– Emancipation vs instrumental knowledge–Contextualised, situated learning–AR in teacher development

Writing up action research: Paper 3

• What was the overall message the author was trying to convey?

• Has the message been clearly and convincingly presented? Why or why not?

Paper 3 as a research report

• How was this report organised?• Do you like this organisation?• How would you write it if you were asked to

improve the report?

Clarity! Clarity! Clarity!

• AR 易做不易写• My advice for your AR report–Clarity in purpose–Clarity in argumentation structure –Clarity in language of presentation