Understanding Action Research: A Practical Approach to Educational Improvement Action Research

The Understanding Action Research: A Practical Approach to Educational Improvement. The Understanding Action Research: A Practical Approach to Educational Improvement” refers to action research, a method where educators systematically study and improve their own teaching practices within a specific context like a classroom or school.

A Practical Approach to Educational Improvement: Understanding Action Research

It involves identifying a problem, planning and implementing an action, observing the results, and reflecting on those results to make further improvements, leading to enhanced student learning and professional growth for the teacher.

Introduction to Action Research

One of the founding figures of action research, Kurt Lewin (1948) remarked that research which produced nothing but books is inadequate. The task, as Marx suggests in his Theses on Feuerbach, is not merely to understand and interpret the world but to change it. Action research is a powerful tool for change and improvement at the local level. Indeed Lewin’s own work was deliberately intended to change the life chances of dis advantaged groups in terms of housing, employment, prejudice, socialization, and training. Its combination of action and research has contributed to its attraction to researchers, teachers and the academic and educational community alike, demolishing Hodgkinson’s (1957) corrosive criticism of action research as easy hobby games for little engineers!

Scope and Applications of Action Research

The scope of action research as a method is impressive. Action research may be used in almost any setting where a problem involving people, tasks and procedures cries out for solution, or where some change of feature results in a more desirable outcome.

Where Action Research Can Be Applied

It can be undertaken by the individual teacher, a group of teachers working co-operatively within one school, or a teacher or teachers working alongside are searcher or researchers in a sustained relationship, possibly with other interested parties like advisers, university departments and sponsors on the periphery (Holly and Whitehead, 1986). Action research can be used in a variety of areas, for example:

Teaching methods

Teaching methods—replacing a traditional method by a discovery method

Learning strategies

Learning strategies—adopting an integrated approach to learning in preference to a single-subject style of teaching and learning

Evaluative procedures

Evaluative procedures—improving one’s methods of continuous assessment

Attitudes and values

Attitudes and values—encouraging more positive attitudes to work, or modifying pupils’ value systems with regard to some aspect of life

Professional development of teachers

Continuing professional development of teachers—improving teaching skills, developing new methods of learning, increasing powers of analysis, of heightening self-awareness

Management and control

Management and control—the gradual introduction of the techniques of behavior modification

School administration

Administration—increasing the efficiency of some aspect of the administrative side of school life.

Defining Action Research

These examples do not mean, however, that action research can be typified straightforwardly; that is to distort its complex and multifaceted nature. Indeed Kemmis (1997) suggests that there are several schools of action research.

Defining Action Research

The different conceptions of action research can be revealed in some typical definitions of action research, for example.

Different Scholars’ Definitions

Hopkins (1985:32) and Ebbutt (1985:156) suggest that the combination of action and research renders that action a form of disciplined inquiry, in which a personal attempt is made to understand, improve and reform practice. Cohen and Manion (1994:186) define it as ‘a small-scale intervention in the functioning of the real world and a close examination of the effects of such an intervention’.

The rigor of action research is attested by Corey (1953:6) who argues that it is a process in which practitioners study problems scientifically (our italics) so that they can evaluate, improve and steer decision making and practice.

What Action Research Is — and What It Is Not

Indeed Kemmis and McTaggart (1992:10) argue that ‘to do action research is to plan, act, observe and reflect more carefully, more systematically, and more rigorously than one usually does in everyday life’.

A more philosophical stance on action research, one that echoes the work of Habermas, is taken by Carr and Kemmis (1986:162), who regard it as a form of ‘self-reflective inquiry’ by participants, undertaken in order to improve understanding of their practices in context with a view to maximizing social justice. Grundy (1987:142) regards action research as concerned with improving the ‘social conditions of existence’.

Kemmis and McTaggart (1992) suggest that: Action research is concerned equally with changing individuals, on the one hand, and, on the other, the culture of the groups, institutions and societies to which they belong. The culture of a group can be defined in terms of the characteristic sub stance and forms of the language and discourses, activities and practices, and social relationships and organization which constitute the interactions of the group. (Kemmis and McTaggart, 1992:16).

It can be seen that action research is designed to bridge the gap between research and practice (Somekh, 1995:340), thereby striving to overcome the perceived persistent failure of research to impact on, or improve, practice (see also Rapoport, 1970:499; and McCormick and James, 1988:339). Stenhouse (1979) suggests that action research should contribute not only to practice but to a theory of education and teaching which is accessible to other teachers, making educational practice more reflective (Elliott, 1991:54).

Action research combines diagnosis with reflection, focusing on practical issues that have been identified by participants and which are somehow both problematic yet capable of being changed (Elliott, 1978:355–6; 1991:49). Zuber-Skerritt (1996b: 83) suggests that ‘the aims of any action research project or program are to bring about practical improvement, in novation, change or development of social practice, and the practitioners’ better understanding of their practices’. The several strands of action research are drawn together by Kemmis and McTaggart (1988) in their all-encompassing definition:

Action research is a form of collective self-reflective inquiry undertaken by participants in social situations in order to improve the rationality and justice of their own social or educational practices, as well as their understanding of these practices and the situations in which these practices are carried out… The approach is only action research when it is collaborative, though it is important to realize that the action research of the group is achieved through the critically examined action of individual group members. (Kemmis and McTaggart, 1988:5)

Kemmis and McTaggart (1992) distinguish action research from the everyday actions of teachers:

It is not the usual thinking teachers do when they think about their teaching. Action research is more systematic and collaborative in collecting evidence on which to base rigorous group reflection.
It is not simply problem-solving. Action research involves problem-posing, not just problem-solving. It does not start from a view of ‘problems’ as pathologies. It is motivated by a quest to improve and understand the world by changing it and learning how to improve it from the effects of the changes made.
It is not research done on other people. Action research is research by particular people on their own work, to help them improve what they do, including how they work with and for others.
Action research is not ‘the scientific method applied to teaching. There is not just one view of ‘the scientific method’; there are many. (Kemmis and McTaggart, 1992:21–2) Noffke and Zeichner (1987) make several claims for action research with teachers, viz. that it.
Brings about changes in their definitions of their professional skills and roles.
Increases their feelings of self-worth and confidence.
Increases their awareness of classroom issues.
Improves their dispositions toward reflection
Changes their values and beliefs
Improves the congruence between practical theories and practices;
Broadens their views on teaching, schooling and society.

A significant feature here is that action research lays claim to the professional development of teachers; action research for professional development is a frequently heard maxim (e.g. Nixon, 1981; Oja and Smulyan, 1989; Somekh, 1995:343; Winter, 1996). It is ‘situated learning’; learning in the workplace and about the workplace (Collins and Duguid, 1989). The claims for action research then are several. Arising from these claims and definitions are several principles.

Core Principles and Characteristics

Hult and Lennung (1980:241–50) and McKernan (1991:32–3) suggest that action research:

Makes for practical problem solving as well as expanding scientific knowledge
Enhances the competencies of participants
Is collaborative
Is undertaken directly in situ
Uses feedback from data in an ongoing cyclical process
Seeks to understand particular complex social situations
Seeks to understand the processes of change within social systems
Is undertaken within an agreed framework of ethics
Seeks to improve the quality of human actions
Focuses on those problems that are of immediate concern to practitioners
Is participatory
Frequently uses case study
Tends to avoid the paradigm of research that isolates and controls variables
Is formative, such that the definition of the problem, the aims and methodology may alter during the process of action research
Includes evaluation and reflection
Is methodologically eclectic
Contributes to a science of education
Strives to render the research usable and shareable by participants
Is dialogical and celebrates discourse
Has a critical purpose in some forms
Strives to be emancipatory.

Zuber-Skerritt (1996b:85) suggests that action research is: critical (and self-critical) collaborative inquiry by reflective practitioners being accountable and making results of their inquiry public self-evaluating their practice and engaged in participatory problem-solving and continuing professional development. This latter view is echoed in Winter’s (1996:13 14) six key principles of action research:

Reflexive critique, which is the process of becoming aware of our own perceptual biases
Dialectical critique, which is a way of understanding the relationships between the elements that make up various phenomena in our context
Collaboration, which is intended to mean that everyone’s view is taken as a contribution to understanding the situation
Risking disturbance, which is an understanding of our own taken-for-granted processes and willingness to submit them to critique
Creating plural structures, which involves developing various accounts and critiques, rather than a single authoritative interpretation
Theory and practice internalized, which is seeing theory and practice as two interdependent yet complementary phases of the change process.

Kemmis and McTaggart’s Principles of Action Research

The several features that the definitions at the start of this post has in common suggest that action research has key principles. These are summarized by Kemmis and McTaggart (1992:22–5):

Action research is an approach to improving education by changing it and learning from the consequences of changes.
Action research is participatory: it is research through which people work towards the improvement of their own practices (and only secondarily on other people’s practices).
Action research develops through the self-reflective spiral: a spiral of cycles of planning, acting (implementing plans), observing (systematically), reflecting…and then replanning, further implementation, observing and reflecting.
Action research is collaborative: it involves those responsible for action in improving it.
Action research establishes self-critical com munities of people participating and collaborating in all phases of the research process: the planning, the action, the observation and the reflection; it aims to build communities of people committed to enlightening themselves about the relationship between circumstance, action and consequence in their own situation, and emancipating themselves from the institutional and personal constraints which limit their power to live their own legitimate educational and social values.
Action research is a systematic learning process in which people act deliberately, though remaining open to surprises and responsive to opportunities.
Action research involves people in theorizing about their practices—being inquisitive about circumstances, action and consequences and coming to understand the relationships between circumstances, actions and consequences in their own lives.
Action research requires that people put their practices, ideas and assumptions about institutions to the test by gathering compelling evidence which could convince them that their previous practices, ideas and assumptions were wrong or wrong-headed.
Action research is open-minded about what counts as evidence (or data)—it involves not only keeping records which describe what is happening as accurately as possible…but also collecting and analyzing our own judgements, reactions and impressions about what is going on.
Action research involves keeping a personal journal in which we record our progress and our reflections about two parallel sets of learning: our learning’s about the practices we are studying…and our learning’s about the process (the practice) of studying them.
Action research is a political process because it involves us in making changes that will affect others.
Action research involves people in making critical analyses of the situations (classrooms, schools, systems) in which they work: these situations are structured institutionally.
Action research starts small, by working through changes which even a single person (myself) can try, and works towards extensive changes—even critiques of ideas or institutions which in turn might lead to more general reforms of classroom, school or system-wide policies and practices.
Action research starts with small cycles of planning, acting, observing and reflecting which can help to define issues, ideas and assumptions more clearly so that those involved can define more power questions for themselves as their work progresses.
Action research starts with small groups of collaborators at the start, but widens the community of participating action researchers so that it gradually includes more and more of those involved and affected by the practices in question.
Action research allows us to build records of our improvements: (a) records of our changing activities and practices, (b) records of the changes in the language and discourse in which we describe, explain and justify our practices, (c) records of the changes in the social relationships and forms of organization which characterize and constrain our practices, and (d) records of the development in mastery of action research.
Action research allows us to give a reasoned justification of our educational work to others because we can show how the evidence we have gathered and the critical reflection we have done have helped us to create a developed, tested and critically-examined rationale for what we are doing.

Individual vs. Collaborative Action Research

Though these principles find widespread support in the literature on action research, they require some comment. For example, there is a strong emphasis in these principles on action research as a co-operative, collaborative activity (e.g. Hill and Kerber, 1967). Kemmis and McTaggart locate this in the work of Lewin himself, commenting on his commitment to group decision-making (p. 6). They argue, for example, that ‘those affected by planned changes have the primary responsibility for deciding on courses of critically informed action which seem likely to lead to improvement, and for evaluating the results of strategies tried out in practice’. Action research is a group activity (p. 6) and that action research is not individualistic.

To lapse into individualism is to destroy the critical dynamic of the group (p. 15) (italics in original). The view of action research solely as a group activity, however, might be too restricting. It is possible for action research to be an individualistic matter as well, relating action research to the ‘teacher-as-researcher’ movement (Stenhouse 1975). Whitehead (1985:98) explicitly writes about action research in individualistic terms, and we can take this to suggest that a teacher can ask herself or himself : ‘What do I see as my problem?’ ‘What do I see as a possible solution?’ ‘How can I direct the solution?’ ‘How can I evaluate the outcomes and take subsequent action?’

Participatory and Democratic Dimensions

The adherence to action research as a group activity derives from several sources. Pragmatically, Oja and Smulyan (1989:14), in arguing for collaborative action research, suggest that teachers are more likely to change their behaviours and attitudes if they have been involved in the research that demonstrates not only the need for such change but that it can be done—the issue of ‘ownership’ and ‘involvement’ that finds its parallel in management literature that suggests that those closest to the problem are in the best position to identify it and work towards its solution (e.g. Morrison, 1998).

Ideologically, there is a view that those experiencing the issue should be involved in decision making, itself hardly surprising given Lewin’s own work with disadvantaged and marginalized groups, i.e. groups with little voice. That there is a coupling of the ideological and political debate here has been brought more up to date with the work of Freire (1970) and Torres (1992:56) in Latin America, the latter setting out several principles of participatory action research:

It commences with explicit social and political intentions that articulate with the dominated and poor classes and groups in society.
It must involve popular participation in the research process, i.e. it must have a social basis.
It regards knowledge as an agent of social transformation as a whole, thereby constituting a powerful critique of those views of knowledge (theory) as somehow separate from practice.
Its epistemological base is rooted in critical theory and its critique of the subject/object relations in research.
It must raise the consciousness of individuals, groups, and nations.

Participatory action research recognizes a role for the researcher as facilitator, guide, formulator and summarizer of knowledge, and raiser of issues (e.g. the possible consequences of actions, the awareness of structural conditions) (Weiskopf and Laske (1996:132–3). What is being argued here is that action research is a democratic activity (Grundy, 1987:142). This form of democracy is participatory (rather than, for example, representative), a key feature of critical theory (discussed be low, see also Aronowitz and Giroux, 1986; Giroux, 1989). Action research is seen as an empowering activity.

Elliott (1991:54) argues that such empowerment has to be at a collective rather than individual level as individuals do not operate in isolation from each other, but are shaped by organizational and structural forces. The issue is important, for it begins to separate action research into different camps (Kemmis, 1997:177). On the one hand are long time advocates of action research such as Elliott (e.g. 1978; 1991) who are in the tradition of Schwab and Schön and who emphasize reflective practice; this is a particularly powerful field of curriculum research with notions of the ‘teacher-as-researcher’ (Stenhouse, 1975, and the reflective practitioner, Schön, 1983, 1987). On the other are advocates in the ‘critical’ action research model, e.g. Carr and Kemmis (1986).

https://nurseseducator.com/high-fidelity-simulation-use-in-nursing-education/

First NCLEX Exam Center In Pakistan From Lahore (Mall of Lahore) to the Global Nursing

Categories of Journals: W, X, Y and Z Category Journal In Nursing Education

AI in Healthcare Content Creation: A Double-Edged Sword and Scary

Social Links:

https://www.facebook.com/nurseseducator/

https://www.instagram.com/nurseseducator/

https://www.pinterest.com/NursesEducator/

https://www.linkedin.com/company/nurseseducator/

https://www.linkedin.com/in/nurseseducator/

https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Afza-Lal-Din

https://scholar.google.com/citations?hl=en&user=F0XY9vQAAAAJ