Action Research focus for this study

For the purpose of this study, I based my AR on the four basic elements of the cycle proposed by Kemmis and McTaggart in 1988, plus the integration of some of the ‘identifiable and interactive phases’ that Burns (2005:59) presents in a framework (Figure 7). Burns’s phases, in my view, present more flexibility and fluidity of the process, and show a more inclusive approach that allows a close and critical analysis of the context of the research. These phases are the result of her working with a group of teacher researchers in Australia, who perceived AR as a series of ‘interrelated experiences’ (Burns 2005:59).

93

Figure 7: Burns’ (2005) framework of AR

Some people might object the manner in which I present Burns’ phases (Figure 7) because the arrows give the impression of being a lineal process. However, I want to make clear that neither Burns nor I suggest this has to be done in a lineal way. As Burns states (2010:What is action research section, para. 6) ‘[a]lthough these processes sound as though they occur in a fixed sequence, in reality they interact dynamically with each other as the researcher’s insights deepen’. In the current study, the phases that Burns proposes were specially emphasised in the first cycle of AR in this study. For a second and subsequent cycles, the four basic phases were kept (Figure 8), although some elements of Burns’s framework were intertwined. I now try to categorize Burns’s phases into the four basic elements of the cycle that, at the same time, provides a general panorama of the process I followed during the study.

Figure 8: Cycles of AR Exploring

Identifying

Planning

Collecting

data Analysing/Reflecting Hypothesising /Speculating Intervening Observing Reporting Writing Presenting

94

I situated the exploring, identifying, and the planning phases that Burns (2005) classifies (Figure 7 above) as integrative of (what I called) a ‘major’ Planning phase or Exploratory phase of the study. Generally speaking, this was because in order to make a plan of action, it was necessary to reflect on and explore practice in order to identify issues of interest or potential situations to base research (Burns 2005). Once I had identified a problematic situation that I wanted to address and improve, I drew a viable plan for gathering data and intervening, as proposed by Burns. The next logical step would have been the Acting phase in which intervention was carried out. Nevertheless, Burns (2005) suggests that, after the initial action, it is necessary to use initial data-gathering techniques (e.g. interviews, review of documents) that help analyse useful data and stimulate early reflections in order to hypothesise, predict and define a better action plan based on the analysis of our reflection on initial data. Bearing in mind Burns’ suggestion, mainly for a first cycle in which we delineate and detail our purpose of study, I considered these three phases (collecting data, analysing/reflective, and hypothesising/speculating) as part of the ‘major’ Planning phase. Therefore, I collected preliminary data through a questionnaire, a focus group, and journal entries written by the participants (see next section for details). After that, I reflected on the data collected and made plan to be implemented in the intervention.

Next, the Acting (or Burns’s intervening) phase took place. This obviously involved the implementation of the intervention through a deliberated plan that included the use of tools, strategies, and values to foster reflection (see 5.6.3 for details). During this phase, data collection was also necessary to guide me to the next step:

Observing. The purpose of this stage, as agreed by Burns, aimed to notice and evaluate the outcomes of the intervention or acting phase. This, in turn, elicited the

95

intervention. Burns does not consider reflecting as a separate phase, but includes it in the observation. For me, reflection is pivotal during the whole cycle of AR; however, I think that a special phase (as suggested by most researchers) should be dedicated to evaluate and critically reflect on the results of the intervention in order to define, if necessary, a new action plan to improve the practice and the intervention. During the reflecting phase, again, analysis of the new data led to the identification of ‘new’ issues and, ideally, a better plan of improvement for the following cycle of AR. As Zwozdiak-Myers (2012:53) states, ‘successful strategies should be retained and built upon, whereas less successful ones should be modified or discarded in light of your reflection’. In the present study, I had the opportunity to include a ‘major’ planning phase in the exploratory phase, and five cycles of AR in the Intervention phase.

As evidence shows, AR definitely involves a more holistic and hermeneutic stance from an interventionist position, associated with a cycle of activities. According to Richards (2003), where it is used,

it embeds the research within a professional context where the practitioner seeks, through deeper understanding and intervention, to bring about changes in their working practices and to explore the emancipatory potential of their activities.

(Richards 2003:25)

As Edge (2001:4) and Burns (2005:61) declare, AR should contribute to the empowerment of teachers and position them as agents of their practice. Mann (1999) argues that teachers are the ones that can best document significant interventions and changes in their own practice. Nevertheless, as Mann (1999:1) suggests, a great number of teacher’s actions are ‘unconscious and routinised’: ‘sometimes they may not realise or be able to describe this complexity until they have begun a process of reflection or reading or both’. Kemmis and McTaggart

96

(1988:10) 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’. For the teachers to engage in AR, it is important to take into consideration the principles and characteristics of this tradition to make it more efficient and precise.

As previously stated, one of the important characteristics of AR is the use of different methods to collect data. Therefore, in the next section I describe some of the data collection techniques I used during my research. Data collection and analysis derived from them ‘offer a potentially rich source of professional understanding (and incentive to action)’ (Richards 2003:25).