Action Research

Action Research is generally accepted to have been developed first by John Collier and Kurt Lewin in the 1930s and 1940s (McNiff and Whitehead, 2005) who both believed that individuals would be more interested and motivated with respect to their work if they had some power to help make decisions about it. This has led to the development of a complex suite of approaches which centre on the development by practitioners of identified issues or problems. Hence, McNiff and Whitehead (2005) define action research as:

‘…a form of enquiry that enables practitioners everywhere to investigate and evaluate their work. They ask, ‘What am I doing? What do I need to improve? How do I improve it?’ Their accounts of practice show how they are trying to

improve their own learning, and influence the learning of others. These

accounts come to stand as their own practical theories of practice, from which others can learn if they wish’. (p.7)

Slater (1996, p.296) additionally characterises action researchers as seeking ‘systematically, critically and self-critically’, to describe and interpret the phenomena of the action in which they are engaged, in order to improve it’. Hence, the focus is on using practice to inform progress and theory. This leads to a different conception of research from that traditionally pursued by many academics, as McNiff (1993, p.39) describes, shifting from a more

traditional:

THEORY PRACTICE

to a revised development, first put forward by McNiff (after Whitehead, 1989) as:

practice _{ theory  re-formed practice  re-formed theory} PROCESS OF THEORISING

Hence, action research sees practice as central to the development of theory. Within this paradigm, it is the reflexivity which occurs through critical practice which is pivotal in developing not only practice itself, but theory from this.

The notion of the reflective, critical professional playing a central role in developing their own practice has proved a popular one, and this has led to a multitude of approaches within different professions (Dick, 2006). In the case of geography, action research has proved useful and popular in a number of cases at an international scale (Gerber and Williams,

2000) as teaching professionals attempt to improve the quality of teaching and learning within the classroom within a context where theory has little immediate, practical meaning. As Butt (2003, p.282) states,

‘Action research is not the solution to all our (research) problems in geography education. However, by enabling classroom-based practitioners to directly question and interpret their own educational situations, structures and ideologies, it does offer hope beyond those methodologies which leave such aspects unquestioned or unresolved… Fundamentally, action research is

predicated on the notion that research can ‘make a difference’, through seeking to find practical solutions to real problems. ’

Action research methodology may take on a different form to suit the focus of the

development of practice. As a consequence, any attempt to define action research is very difficult as it employs many different techniques in many different dynamic contexts. However, the basic foundation on which all action research is based is that of reflective practice. This leads to a simple cyclical process as shown in Figure 3.3.

Figure 3.3 An action research Cycle (McNiff and Whitehead, 2006, p.9) observe reflect act evaluate modify move in new direction

An individual starts the action research cycle by observing some element of current practice which they decide needs to be improved. For example, a teacher might believe that

students are showing a lack of motivation within lessons due to observing that there is little interaction and enthusiasm. Having observed this, the teacher then reflects on why this might be the case. This reflection may include the collection of some form of baseline information, be it through an interview with students, and/or the use of a questionnaire, helping to inform the reflective process. Macintyre (2000) argues that the reflection element of the cycle should also include a review of recent literature as this will enhance the experience and understanding of the action researcher as they move into consideration of what the intervention should be which is intended to improve the situation. In the case of improving motivation for learning, baseline data may show that an over didactic

approach to lessons might be a serious impediment to student learning and engagement. Having identified this as a possible major factor which needs to be explored, analysis of the relevant literature may give some clear indicators as to the type of approach which might help improve the situation.

Having reflected on the factors which may prove important in developing the issue which has been identified, an intervention is then developed, planned to help develop and improve practice. This is then carried out. In the case of a teacher wanting to improve motivation, this might be the planned inclusion of a more active pedagogy. Once this

intervention has been implemented it should be evaluated, again through the use of various methods such as interviews, questionnaires, etc. Having considered the evaluation of the intervention, the final element of the cycle is to modify practice having understood and considered the evaluation. The modification completes the cycle, but may in its own right

identify new issues which have to be considered; for example, if active learning has been introduced, the evaluation may demonstrate that the assessment tasks used no longer fit in with the new pedagogy, and hence, this may become the new focus for another cycle of action research. In this way, action research can lead to a number of developmental cycles (Figure 3.4) which take on the form of a virtuous spiral of professional development.

Figure 3.4 The use of multiple research cycles in action research development There has been an increasingly complex consideration of action research, as it is developed by different groups of professionals for different purposes. Kemmis (1993) identifies three types of action research:

- Technical action research: this approach focuses on developing the relative

efficiency and effectiveness of practice.

- Practical action research: aims to improve practitioner understanding and action,

but does not necessarily have to occur in collaboration with others. observe reflect act evaluate modify move in new direction observe reflect act evaluate modify move in new direction CYCLE 1 CYCLE 2

- Emancipatory action research: allowing the ‘group’ to take responsibility for its own

development, including that which might take it outside of the accepted culture of the wider community.

The present study is located within the practical approach, by focusing on the development of the practitioner’s understanding and action with the intention of improving practice and understanding of classroom pedagogy. In developing a new GCSE course, the main focus is to understand and develop a new pedagogical approach which considers and reflects on issues of curriculum, learning, teaching and assessment. As such, this is an approach which closely follows the practitioner as researcher notion of Stenhouse (1975).

Action research should be carried out in such a way as to make the results and analysis valid. As Pring states:

‘Similarly with action research: the active reflection upon practice with a view to its improvement needs to be a public activity. By ‘public’ I mean that the research is conducted in such a way that others can scrutinize and, if necessary, question the practice of which it is part.’

(Pring, 2000, p.134) Validity can be defined as ‘the reasons we have for believing truth claims’ (Norris, 1997, p.172). Many accepted forms of validity in educational research have been developed from a quantitative, positivist conceptualisation of research, which are increasingly seen as unsuitable for naturalistic research, such as action research (Lather, 1993). This has led to a development of alternative considerations of what constitutes validity within

methodologies such as action research. Winter (2002) argues for two processes which he believes should become part of the action research process, and which can lead to an argument for validity. Firstly, he argues that the process must be based on collaboration,

where those involved have a voice to play an active role in affecting change (i.e.

participatory action research), and secondly, as a result, there must be a process of constant self-questioning not only by the researcher, but with those included in the research. In the case of the present research, the process of self-questioning is a consistent feature of the developing pedagogical model, and the collaboration with students is demonstrated through the use of data collection, for example, the baseline information, which is used to inform the development of that pedagogical model. By seeing these processes as central to the pursuit of action research, complexity is acknowledged, and ‘the research text is above all tentative, modest in its ‘claims to know’, aware of its ironic contingency.’ (Winter, 2002, p.152). Feldman (2007) adds to Winter’s conceptualisation of validity within action research by adding a number of other principles he believes are necessary to ensure the validity of action research projects. These include the detailed description of how and why data were collected, an explanation as to why the chosen narrative is more reliable than any other which might explain the results gained, and an acceptance that any proof of causality in an action research project is extremely difficult, and that,

‘one’s argument for the validity of a study can be enhanced if the action researchers are able to provide an explanation of why they believe that the actions led to the results. That is, it is not enough to say that ‘It is true because it works.’ One must also provide an explanation or theory of why it works. In addition, that theory needs to be useful for understanding other situations, and must be subjected to critique’

(Feldman, 2007, p.30)

Hence, throughout the course of an action research project there needs to be a critical interaction between both the researcher and participants, and both of these groups with the process or issue under investigation. It is only through this constant reflexivity that the

methods used and foci chosen for consideration can be demonstrated to have validity. Further, the outcomes of the interventions must be seen as tentative, and need to be carefully considered, although through this understanding and theory, however tentative, can begin to take shape.

Because the action research approach is so often embedded within classroom practice, there is no single uniform approach in terms of the methods which are to be employed. Hewitt (found in McNiff, 1993, p.68) includes the following as techniques which have been employed in his work in Avon, in action research projects focused on improving the quality of classroom environments:

• examination of pupils’ work

• observation of pupils

• mutual observation by teachers

• questionnaires to pupils

• questionnaires to teachers

• video tapes of lessons

• diaries

• written accounts

• photographs

• audiotapes of interviews

• case studies

What this demonstrates is the potential of action research as a framework for developing mixed methodologies. Such a diversity of possible approaches may also add to the level of

validity within a project by allowing for the critical comparison between results gained from different perspectives (i.e. triangulation).