The dominant mixed methods research designs include: explanatory sequential design, where the qualitative data are collected later in the process to explain the quantitative results; exploratory sequential design, where the quantitative data are gathered to generalize the findings obtained from the qualitative data; and convergent design, where the qualitative and quantitative data are collected and analyzed simultaneously. Another design that sometimes falls under the category of basic design, according to Creswell and Plano Clark (2011), is the embedded mixed design. Adding another research design to the predominant mixed methods design forms an embedded design (Creswell, 2013;
Ivankova, 2015; Plano Clark & Ivankova, 2016).
In this embedded mixed design, which was selected for this study, qualitative and quantitative strands are collected within a traditional research approach. Because the present study required understandings of the nature of the research problem to inform an intervention conducted in the second phase, the survey was nested within the main qualitative action research to achieve the overall objectives. Creswell and Plano Clark (2011) conclude that “researchers use this [embedded] design when they need to include qualitative or quantitative data to answer a research question within a largely quantitative or qualitative study” (pp. 67-68). Some researchers have also described this design as a partial mixed study because not all stages are embedded (Creswell & Plano Clark, 2011; Leech & Onwuegbuzie, 2007).
Figure 3.1 shows the embedded nature of this study. Quantitative and qualitative data were first collected simultaneously. Plano Clark and Creswell (2008) explain that in an embedded design, one research method is given less emphasis. In this study, the quantitative method had less weight. Themes resulting from the quantitative and qualitative baseline data provided broad understandings of the nature of the research problem from the teachers and schools leaders’ perspectives, which then directed the second phase with its design and implementation of an intervention (Inquiry and
63
knowledge-building cycle) programme in one selected school. The results from the entire study were then interpreted and discussed.
Figure 3.1. Embedded mixed action research design of this study
Source: Adapted from Ivankova (2017) and Costello (2011)
3.5.1 Action research methodology
Action research methods are used for collecting data that focus on finding solutions to social issues. This methodology formed the main design for this study because action research is “about improving (teachers) learning for improving practice” (McNiff, 2010, p. 7). Action research was initiated by a social psychologist, Kurt Lewin, in the 1940s (Kemmis & McTaggart, 2005; McNiff, 2013). After Lewin’s work, in 1953, Stephen Corey from the USA introduced the idea of action research in education (Kemmis &
64
McTaggart, 2005; McAteer, 2013). Since this foundational work of Lewin and Corey, the ideas of action research have evolved across disciplines. Currently, action research is becoming increasingly acknowledged as an important research strategy for improving practices in schools (Ary, Jacobs, & Sorensen, 2010; McNiff, 2013; Noffke & Somekh, 2009). According to Collins and Duguid (1989, cited in L. Cohen, Manion, & Morrison, 2011), action research is ‘situated learning’; learning in the workplace and about the workplace” (p. 346).
In teacher education settings, action research is a commonly used approach. This research methodology evolved from mere staff-development practices in 1970s to a more rigorous methodology in teacher-driven professional learning and research (Bradbury-Huang, 2010). In the present study, action research is relevant to the fundamental questions posed. When organized effectively, action research can empower teachers, promote student learning and change school culture (Burns, 2000; Gordon, 2008). While action research provides solutions to problems that cannot be generalized beyond the local condition, once the findings are shared, and the context made specific, other people can learn from the results.
3.5.1.1Collaborative action research approach
This study used a collaborative action research (CAR) approach. There are a number of approaches to action research that differ in purpose and procedure (Kemmis & McTaggart, 2005), but they share some common elements (Creswell & Guetterman, 2019; Stringer, 2007, 2014). Creswell and Guetterman (2019) propose that action research falls under two main types: practical and participatory. They explain that practical action research is conducted by classroom teachers themselves or in collaboration with other school members to address common classroom challenges, while participatory action research involves broader social practices. Participatory action research can also be referred to as CAR, in which teachers study together problems of practice (Beck, 2017; Herr & Anderson, 2005).
CAR was selected as a methodology for this study because it gave teachers an opportunity to work with other colleagues and myself as a researcher and an outsider, as a way of engaging in SBPL. CAR involves dialogues and reflection in which teachers share expertise and experiences, and is conducted in the natural setting such as a school
65
(Biesta, 2010; Burns, 2000). In the present study, teachers collaborated with me, the researcher, as a form of professional learning to bring about changes in their SBPL understandings andpractices, and as a form of transformation in their teaching practice as well. As such, CAR aligns with an inquiry and knowledge-building cycle (IKBC), which is a collaborative model of PL applied in this study. Hine (2013) argues that CAR “puts teachers in charge of their craft” (p. 152). When teachers use CAR they develop the ability to act reflectively, democratically, systematically, and with open minds to achieve their goals (L. Cohen et al., 2007).
3.5.1.2Phases of collaborative action research
CAR is conducted in a cyclic manner. However, Creswell (2014) cautions that it is also a dynamic process which does not follow strict sequences. This study followed the common elements presented by Kemmis and McTaggart (1988) and Lewin (1948, cited in Ivankova, 2017), which conceptually occur in five stages of diagnosing or reconnaissance, planning, acting, observing and reflecting (presented in Figure 3.1 above).
At the reconnaissance stage, a research problem is identified and the data regarding the problem are collected, analysed and interpreted. This stage, which marked the first phase of the present study, was conducted through a survey to understand the nature of the research problem and direct the remaining phase of the study. Mraz and Kissel (2014) suggest that launching a professional learning intervention using a survey is quite useful, so as participants are offered a clear direction. During planning the researcher and other research participants reflect on the research topic and think about an action or an intervention that can help to address a practical problem. At this point of planning, the IKBC was employed to guide teachers to engage in an effective form of SBPL.
After planning, the teacher participants engaged in the implementation stage, known as
acting, where they undertake some kind of intervention they have planned to address the problem. The observation phase involves looking at the implementation of the action plan. Observation also happens throughout the research process and it involves interaction between participants through informal conversations (Craig, 2009). Taking field notes or photographs helps to provide insights about what has happened.
66
Finally, the researcher and the participants interpret the impact of the action which forms the reflecting stage. However, reflection is made throughout the research process across all phases. These phases of CAR are described in detail later in the research sequence in this chapter.
3.5.1.3Role of the researcher in collaborative action research
In CAR, it is important for researchers to establish their position. McNiff (2013) mentions three positions that can be taken by a researcher, including, (i) researching with other individuals, (ii) assisting individuals to conduct action research or (iii) engaging in CAR. Moreover, McNiff explains that an action researcher can either decide to take an outsider or an insider position, or both.
In this study, I took on both the roles of an insider and an outsider. During planning meetings and discussions, where the teachers brought their beliefs, understandings and experiences, I acted as an insider participant by sharing my knowledge as a co- participant. With many years of experience in teaching and reading literature about teacher learning in workplaces, I was in a better position to assist teachers develop understandings of the SBPL practices. For example, during the planning meetings I suggested different PL strategies that might suit teachers’ learning plans and assisted them to identify some relevant online resources. In this way I was assuming the role of “a resource person to whom the participants can turn for advice and information” (Ary et al., 2010, p. 455). Taking on a facilitator role, while continuing learning with the teachers, enabled me to develop rapport and empathy with them. This mutual rapport helped the teachers to feel free to ask questions or to share their learning and teaching experiences. Berg (2004) emphasises that “the researcher contributes expertise when needed as a participant in the process” (p. 202).
While maintaining an insider role in this CAR, I also played an outsider role. Adams and Lawrence (2015) indicate that the researcher may partially interact with participants, so as to pay attention to the activities they are engaged with. Therefore, at different stages of the study I took an outsider role to allow the teachers to have more choice in their PL tasks and to take a lead in their participation. In this role, I observed, listened to and encouraged the teachers during the planning meetings and classroom teaching, which enabled them to build confidence in their SBPL participation. As
67
commented by Costello (2011), CAR needs to offer participants opportunities to enhance their confidence in their own PL practices. In addition, Creswell (2014) clarifies that as an outsider the researcher “sits on the periphery or some advantageous place (e.g., the back of the classroom) to watch and record the phenomenon under study” (p. 237). Through maintaining this outsider role, I was able to observe and record the teachers’ participation, as well as interview them and interpret the information they shared with me.