Date-warning: Date header was inserted by yvax.byu.edu
X-Envelope-to: ERL-L@TCSVM.BITNET
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.erl-l
Date:         Fri, 22 Jan 1993 11:14:32 -0700
From:         WILLD@BYUVAX.BITNET
Subject:      Educators as Inquirers

I have received several provocative posts on this topic since asking if
there was interest in it a couple of weeks ago.  James Reither responded
with several questions regarding what "action research" is, who does it,
what methods are involved, what questions are asked, what is done with
results, and what problems arise in this kind of research.  Cyril Kesten
followed up on these questions by asking how action research is related to
qualitative and quantitative research, how AR can be used in teacher
education, and whether AR allows for generalizability and replication.
These questions provoked a few responses which I will summarize below.  One
reaction I had was a concern that the discussion might be focusing too
early on AR per se and not on other variations of the notion of educators
as inquirers that didn't necessarily emerge from the particular traditions
that have been categorized as AR.  I invite you to respond to the questions
raised here and to the points summarized below as well.

Rebecca Clemente began addressing some of these questions in a post about a
course she is teaching to inservice teachers and administrators to
encourage them to conduct AR in their work settings.  She noted that both
qualitative and quantitative methods are used, that AR is examination by
practitioners into some aspect of their practice and work settings in
preparation for making changes.  She gave an example of a preservice
teacher education experience with AR as well and outlined some practical
steps for conducting AR that are reviewed in the literature.  She offered
to post some of the results of these kinds of inquiry being conducted this
semester by her graduate students.  Her post suggested that AR is a fairly
common activity among teachers and pre-service teachers as well.  Is that
so in your experience?  Are others who prepare teachers and help teachers
improve their practices doing the kinds of work Rebecca outlined?

Paul Jablon noted that most AR allows the practitioner to be flexible in
modifying inquiry designs and treatments in response to preliminary
results, much as is done in formative evaluation and much of what is
concerned "qualitative research."  Jablon believes people who do AR "get a
lot of flack from purists" who think this flexible approach to design leads
to invalidity and lack of reliability; but he finds the methods used by
many action researchers are "very demanding and exacting in nature."  What
are your experiences in terms of "respect" people have for this kind of
inquiry?  Is the issue of respect an important issue or is the intent to
involve people who are acting on findings from inquiry in the generation of
that inquiry so THEY value it and what they learn from doing it?  If a
teacher or administrator does their own study on an issue of concern to
them and their associates and obtain results they can do something about,
why would they care what some larger audience and THEIR inquiry standards
or the "generalizability" of the results beyond their setting?  In fact,
the concerns about generalizability and validity would seem to make local
practitioners hesitant about doing any inquiry at all if they took them
very seriously.  Gene Glass argues that this view excludes teachers from
the political involvement they must have to have the educational resources
they need to make lasting differences.

Gene wrote a response claiming that a focus on the methodological issues
surrounding AR is mistaken and the more important issue is the political
agenda associated with teaching and thinking about curriculum.  He
encourages teachers to continue the thinking activities they have usually
engaged in anyway and to be "reflective practitioners" as Donald Schon
describes.  He argues though that if teachers only conduct their local
studies, they will lose all control over resources such as money, personnel
decisions, curriculum, and technique to other parties (particularly
administrators) which collaborate to sponsor "large-scale research."  He
wonders why the NEA doesn't join this political fray.  He claims that
university professors are behind the idea of AR by teachers and that they
conceive of it as quantitative, preordinate and unaware of the more
critical political and curricular issues teachers ought to focus on.

Phil Ferguson responded with a different set of experiences than Gene's.
He finds that AR is really an attempt to encourage people to develop local
knowledge to solve local problems of people with vested interests in the
results, while thinking globally about the impact of their local action on
the general concerns people have about education.  He sees this as being a
practical way to help teachers be "reflective practitioners."  Phil notes
too that AR is only one relevant term and invites us to open the discussion
up to include other traditions such as participatory research associated
with Paulo Freire and others.

Peter Seidman, who works to translate research into practice sent a
personal message to me saying that he would like to find ways to do this
via AR but the university culture does not reward the researchers he works
with for efforts to build networks with people who might benefit from their
inquiry; AR appears to them to be an inefficient hindrance to their
research.

Several readers responded with citations to published materials on AR,
teachers as reseachers, and collegial clinical supervision.  The following
list was sent to me personally by Robin McTaggart from Deakin and ought to
be of interest to some of you:

John Elliott's work on action research and Garth Boomer, Nancy Lester,
Cynthia Onore and Jonathon Cook NEGOTIATING THE CURRICULUM Edward
Arnold/Hodder and Stoughton (in Australia).

Brown, L. (1988).  Group self-evaluation:  Learning for improvement.
Melbourne, Victoria:  School Improvement Plan Secretariat, Ministry of
Education.
Fay, B. (1988).  Critical social science.  Ithaca, NY:  Cornell University
Press.
Hustler, D., Cassidy, T., and Cuff, T.  (Eds.) (1986).  Action research in
classrooms and schools.  London:  Allen and Unwin.
Nixon, J. (1981) (Ed.).  A teachers' guide to action research:  Evaluation,

enquiry and development in the classroom.  London:  Grant McIntyre.
Kemmis, S., & McTaggart, R. (Eds.) (1988a).  The action research planner
(3rd
ed.).  Geelong, Victoria:  Deakin University Press.
Kemmis, S., & McTaggart, R. (Eds.) (1988b).  The action research reader
(3rd
ed.).  Geelong, Victoria:  Deakin University Press.
McTaggart, R. (1991).  Principles for participatory action research.  Adult

Education Quarterly. 41 (3), 1-20.
McTaggart, R. (1991).  Action research:  A short modern history.  Geelong,
Victoria:  Deakin University Press.
McTaggart, R., and Garbutcheon-Singh, M.  (1986).  New directions in action

research, Curriculum Perspectives, 6 (2), 42-46.
Nias, J. , and Groundwater-Smith, S.  (1988).  The enquiring teacher:
Supporting and sustaining teacher research.  London:  Falmer.
Tandon, R. (1988).  Social transformation and participatory research.
Convergence, 21 (2/3), 5-14.
Wadsworth, Y.  (1984).  Do it yourself social research.  Melbourne:
Victorian
Council of Social Service and Melbourne Family Care Organisation.
Wadsworth, Y.  (1984).  Everyday evaluation on the run.  Melbourne:  Action

Research Issues Association.
Walker, R.  (1989).  Doing research:  A handbook for teachers.  London:
Routledge.
Walker, R., and Adelman, C.  (1975).  A guide to classroom observation.
London: Methuen.
Winter, R. (1989).  Learning from experience:  Principles and practice in
action research.  London:  Falmer.

Max van Manen's work is also relevant.

A lot of interesting work is being done by people at Deakin University in
Geelong Australia and South Bank University in London, UK.Stephen Kemmis
from Deakin notes that participating seriously in AR "where the action is"
also involves becoming involved in the politics of change which can be
unnerving for some but is what needs to happen if academics are going to
have any real impact on practice.  He published the first paper in the new
electronic journal-- EDUCATION POLICY ANALYSIS ARCHIVES in which he
"discusses different traditions
of action research in relation to their views about the connection of
research and social movement, touching on the so-called "macro-micro"
problem which bedevils conceptualizations of this relationship." (quoted
from the abstract).

Glenn Snelbeck sent a message saying that making the distinction between
research to "draw conclusions" and evaluation to "make practical decsions"
might clear up some of the confusion people have over the purposes of AR.
Robert Branson supported that point by suggesting that AR be subsumed under
discussions of quality systems which focus on systematic improvement and
have been advancing the notions of formative evaluation in recent years.

Anna Martin noted that the nature of AR will vary depending on the purposes
and participants-- for example preservice teachers will conduct a different
kind of inquiry than inservice teachers.  She thinks more ought to be done
with preservice teacher preparation using the notion of AR to help them
inquire into classroom events.

I have focused much  of my attention on this aspect of AR-- inviting
university students to study how students learn and how schools function as
part of the preparation to be teachers instead of focusing exclusively on
the content of their lessons or the pedagogical techniques they use.  I
have recently found an excellent resource for this purpose AND for inviting
current teachers to be better inquirers-- "Mind Matters: Teaching for
Thinking" by Dan Kirby and Carol Kuykendall.  This book seems to address
Gene's concern about teachers focusing more on being reflective
practitioners but it also invites them to try out a variety of inquiry
activities such as thinking like an artist, an inventor, a naturalist, and
an anthropologist without ever calling them research (as Arnold@UNCA.BITNET
noted, the term "action inquiry" is often being used to overcome negative
connotations some teachers associate with the term "research" which they
often believe is university-based work that has little to do with the daily
realities of their classrooms).  I believe there is plenty of merit in
continuing the "local work" of this kind of inquiry and the preparation of
inquirying teachers while considering the political challenges Gene and
others raise too.

This "summary" of what I have received personnally and what has been
submitted by others in the ERL-L suggests that several important issues
have been raised but much more discussion is needed. Looking forward to
your thoughts!
David D. Williams    Instructional Science Department
201-C MCKB    Brigham Young University    Provo, UT 84602
Voice:  801-378-2765      Fax: 801-378-4017
Internet: willd@yvax.byu.edu. Bitnet: willd@byuvax.bitnet
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU