This article was downloaded by: [Newcastle University]On: 19 December 2014, At: 01:56Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House,37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Kappa Delta Pi RecordPublication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/ukdr20

Research in Practice: Teacher Empowerment throughAction ResearchJames E. McLean aa University of Alabama , Birmingham , USAPublished online: 03 Aug 2012.

To cite this article: James E. McLean (1997) Research in Practice: Teacher Empowerment through Action Research, KappaDelta Pi Record, 34:1, 34-38, DOI: 10.1080/00228958.1997.10518721

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00228958.1997.10518721

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the “Content”) containedin the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make norepresentations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of theContent. Any opinions and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors, andare not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content should not be relied upon andshould be independently verified with primary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable forany losses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoeveror howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising out of the use ofthe Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematicreproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in anyform to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

Teacher owerment through Action Research

James E McLean University of Alabama at Birmingham

The lack of control many teachers feel they have over what and how they teach is often a result of an education system that robs teachers of a sense of professionalism. The curriculum is dictated by state-mandated courses of study and board policy, teaching methods are based on research conducted by others, their books are written by college professors, and the day-to-day classroom routine is determined by principals and other school administrators. On the other hand, action research can empower teachers to determine what works best for them within the confines of the system and the tools available to them. Action research in the educational setting is a “process of systemati- cally evaluating the consequences of educa- tional decisions and adjusting practice to maximize effectiveness” (McLean 1995,3). This article describes the process of class- room research known as action research, comments on related issues, provides a strategy for implementing it, illustrates the action research strategy, and discusses the challenge and promise of action research.

Professionalism is tied to the ability to make one’s own decisions (Cameronjones, 1983), and students can best be served when school-level educators participate in deci- sions (Willis 1994). While action research in a classroom setting is not a quick fix for all problems, it provides teachers and other school-level educators with a systematic method for determining what “best practice” is in their own schools and classrooms. Participation in action research also serves as

an ongoing staff development program in which teachers learn from their own study and from each other (Miller and Pine 1990). Experi- ence has shown that teachers’ confidence is enhanced when they discuss their research with each other (Hoffman and Reed 1994). Participation in action research promotes the establishment of a community of scholars in which everyone is striving to improve student performance (Allen and Shockley 1994). Teachers are more likely to embrace change when they understand its necessity and participate in meaningful ways (Hoffman and Reed 1994). Further- more, teachers are much more likely to use a technique that they and their fellow teachers have demonstrated works for them than to use results suggested in research journals.

In the 1970s, the US. auto industry learned from the Japanese that worker participation in decision making had a significant effect on the quality of the cars they produced. In the 199Os, U.S. education is learning that same lesson in regards to student learning. This is not the first time teacher involvement in classroom research has been suggested-in 193 1, Dewey (193 1) indicated that the best source of improved knowledge about teaching is the teachers themselves. While there are many reasons for this, one is obvious. Research findings generally are reported in terms of group averages. While these results may apply to “average” situations or even most situa- tions, there are numerous exceptions. Differences in student charac- teristics, schools, communities, and teachers often produce different results than those reported in research journals. Teachers must have the skills to determine what works best in their own classrooms.

Some Action Research Issues There are a number of issues surrounding the use of action

research. One of these issues is the choice between quantitative or qualitative methods. Action research can be conducted using either qualitative methods or quantitative methods. However, the most effective action research will incorporate features from both method- ologies. There are excellent resources that provide detailed informa- tion about conducting action research using qualitative methods (Anderson, Herr, and Nihlen 1994; Hatch 1995; Stringer 1996) and

xm- /-ss-

K D P R e c o r d * F a l l 1 9 9 7

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

New

cast

le U

nive

rsity

] at

01:

56 1

9 D

ecem

ber

2014

quantitative methods (Hopkins 1993; McLean 1995; Winter 1989). Another concern surrounding the use of action research is

whether teachers have the necessary skills and where teachers might acquire these skills. The image of research conjures up visions of computers and hefty statistical analyses. At first, most teachers think that they do not possess the skills necessary for conducting research, but they do. These skills were learned in tests and measurement classes. In addition, the abundance of desktop computers and inexpensive software provides assistance in organizing data and displaying results. Cooperation and sharing among teachers further enhances skills for action research. Group expertise far exceeds the expertise of individual teachers.

Determining the extent to which results from action research can be generalized is another issue that has been discussed in the litera- ture. Applied action research is often viewed as “anecdotal, local, and hence easily dismissed as not being rigorous, generalizable, or useful. In contrast, basic research (results from university-based researchers) is typically considered to be authoritative because it is perceived as being systematic, universal, and scientific” (Allen and Shockley 1994, 1). In reality, most research is neither totally applied nor totally basic, but somewhere in between (Olney and Bell 1990). Each can be more valid in given situations. Just as test instruments are validated for specific purposes with specific populations, results from action research are generally more valid in the specific arena in which it was conducted than are findings from a broad-based, controlled research study. Findings based on averages may not, and often do not, apply to specific situations. For example, if “average” results were applied to all situations, it would be almost impossible for a person to drown in a lake that had an average depth of three inches. Thus, it behooves educators to determine if even well-established results are applicable to their specific situations.

research conceptualized and done by people-usually graduate students and college professors-who lack recent direct experience in the situation where the research is taking place. In a recent commen- tary, Cook (1994,48) noted, “if graduate students lack an understand- ing of the complexities of school life, so do most of their mentors.” Few faculty from schools of education spend enough time in the public schools to gain an appreciation for these complexities, and action research done by practitioners can be extended to help theorists clarify and deepen their understanding (Elliott 1989).

research” on their students. First, let us contrast a large-scale con- trolled study with an action research study. In a large-scale study, control of bias is often attained by randomly assigning students to treatment conditions. This procedure results in lost opportunities for students receiving less effective treatments and requires careful records of placement and performance by individual students. Thus, most of these types of studies must be reviewed and approved by human-subjects review committees. In action research, the perfor-

Beyond the local validity of research findings is the validity of

A final issue that concerns educators is the ethics of “doing

mance of students is studied during their regular participation in the education process. No student is denied opportunities based on this type of research. Furthermore, confidentiality is not a problem, as the teacher who already knows identities is conducting the research and the results are reported only in an aggregated manner. In fact, the treatment likely would be taking place anyway, and it is unethical not to evaluate its effectiveness. Some schools and school districts have policies regarding this type of research, and these policies should always be observed.

An Action Research Strategy A research strategy for action research

involves three phases: conceptualization, implementation, and interpretation (McLean 1995). It is a sequential, circular model that can be applied to any educational process. Because action research is a continuous- improvement model, results from one cycle are implemented and the model is applied again during the next cycle.

The conceptualization phase involves delineating the teaching-learning process to be studied, identifymg the inputs or required resources, and identifying the expected outcomes. This phase is essential, as action research is the process of determining if the inputs and processes actually produced the anticipated outcomes. The conceptualization process itself often brings about a clearer understanding of the potential Idcages among the inputs, processes, and outcomes, resulting in an improved teaching-learning situation.

The implementation phase involves measuring outcomes, idenhfylng standards for comparisons, and comparing the results of current practice with these standards. For action research, measuring outcomes can take advantage of the teacher-made assess- ments already in place for grading purposes, district- or statemandated standardized-test results, or observations collected for com- parison purposes. The identification of a comparison standard could use results from other students in the same or a similar

K D P R e c o r d * F a l l 1 9 9 7

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

New

cast

le U

nive

rsity

] at

01:

56 1

9 D

ecem

ber

2014

situation. This can be accomplished in a number of ways-the performance of previ- ous students if teacher-made measures are involved; national, state, or local norms if standardized tests are used; or the perfor- mance of other students in different classes. Comparing performance of students using the current practice to the comparison students can be done in numerous ways, such as through the use of simple graphs or by comparing means or proportions. It is important to consider the overlap between these groups as well as the averages. Power- ful, inexpensive, easy-to-use statistical software makes these comparisons even easier. For example, MYSTAT statistical software is user friendly, inexpensive (costs less than $20), and available for DOS (Hale 1992a), Windows (Steagall and Hale 1994), and Macintosh (Hale 1992b) operating systems. These programs have spreadsheet data entry, and the Windows and Macintosh versions are point-and-click operated.

The interpretation phase involves judging the effectiveness of the teaching- learning process under study, judging cost benefits, and determining actions to be taken as a result. This phase combines results from the implementation phase with understand- ings of the teaching-learning process gleaned

from the conceptualization phase to draw conclusions about the effectiveness of the process under study for the specific situation. Cost-benefits should also be taken into account in determining the action or actions to be taken as a result. This action research strategy is summarized in figure 1 on page 37.

Action Research in Action As any research, action research is usually initiated because of a

problem or performance that does not meet expectations. In the following example, which is no exception, a state testing program adopted a new nationally norm-referenced assessment battery. The new assessment battery purported to concentrate more on higher- order thinking skills than did the previous one. The first year the assessment battery was given, students’ performance in language arts was far below that of students from previous years. A particular school district decided to address the problem by adopting a new language arts textbook. The new textbook included many more discussion questions than the previous books that solicited thought and creativity from students.

action research. First, she developed the conceptualiwtion of the research. The teaching-learning process differed from that of the previous year primarily in terms of the introduction of the new textbook and the accompanying changes in student assignments. The new textbook and accompanying exercises that were inputs into the process purported to promote higher-order thinking skills in students. If the claim was correct, it would improve the higher-order thinking skills regardless of the general ability level of the students.

For the impkmentution phase, together we identified the outcome measures, bases of comparison, and data-analysis techniques. The

At that time, Ms. Brown decided to examine her teaching using

most obvious outcome measure is the language arts scale on the state assessment. Another less obvious outcome to consider is the student-ability measure, also from the state assessment. We did not select the ability measure because we believed that the new textbook would increase school ability; rather, we believed it would be useful to know if the comparison group was of similar ability. Finally, implementation required us to identify a standard of comparison. In this case, we selected two comparison groups: the teacher’s students from the previous year and the national norming group for the state assessment. In this way, results could be cross-validated using the local comparison and the national comparison. Ms. Brown had 30 students in last year’s class and another 30 students in this year’s class. She decided to compare their performance by

K D P R e c o r d - . F a l l 1 9 9 7

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

New

cast

le U

nive

rsity

] at

01:

56 1

9 D

ecem

ber

2014

Conceptualization Delineate teaching- learning process Idenhfy inputs f Idenhfy outcomes

Interpretation Judge effectiveness Judge cost benefit Determineaction

computing the mean achievement and ability for each year using simple graphs.

The interpretation involved comparing the performance of the students on the state assessment for achievement and ability over the two years and with the norm group. In normal curve equivalents, the mean achievement the first year was 39.2. It increased to 51.9 the year the new textbook was used.

year and between about 13 and 82 the year the new textbook was used. The national average on the assessment was 50; thus, the average performance improved from below the national average to above the national average.

We considered the possibility that this improved performance was because we had higher ability students in the second year. Mean abilities were computed for the two years. They were 46.2 for year 1 and 46.1 for year 2, with a similar range of scores each year.

mance is due to higher ability students the second year. Thus, if the new state assessment does measure higher-order thinking skills, the improved performance of Ms. Brown’s students is most likely due to the introduction of the new textbook and its accompanying exercises. Because the cost of the new textbooks was approximately equal to that of the old ones, the conclusion would be to continue using the new textbooks and exercises. This action research was conducted by one teacher with her own students. The results apply only to that one teacher. However, all of the teachers in the school could conduct the same or similar studies to draw an appropriate conclusion.

This is but one example of how action research can assist teach- ers in maximizing student learning. While this example was con- ducted at the classroom level, action research has been reported to impact on presewice teacher education (Nome and Stevenson 1995), in-service teacher education (Letiche, Van Der Wolf, and Plooij 1991), educational reform (Heckman 1996; Zuber-Skemtt 1991), and

Student achievement ranged between about 4 and 72 in the first

These data suggest that it is unlikely that the improved perfor-

Implementation Measure outcomes Identify comparison Analyze comparison

Figure 1. Action research model (Source: McLean 1995,67).

many other areas (Bartell 1990). At the classroom level, it has been demonstrated effective in elementary and early childhood settings (Hatch 1995) and at the secondary level-for example, in science (Johnson and Johnson 1986). Many books are available on action research applied to specific situations, such as block scheduling (Marshak 1997), cooperative learning (Johnson and Johnson 1986), and promoting change (Goswami and Stillman 1987).

The Challenge and Promise of Action Research

For action research to fulfill its potential in education, it has to overcome several challenges. One of these challenges is a perception that action research is too techni- cal and that the time it requires far outweighs its potential rewards. However, a more formidable challenge to action research is probably political. It is political in the sense that it confers on teachers, individually and collectively, greater knowledge and under- standing and thereby greater power (Sockett 1989). Thus, it challenges the power of administrators and policy makers. Its greatest political challenge relates to the speed with which action research results have an impact. Action research is not a quick fuc solution, but a slow, deliberate method of improving practice. Political decision makers usually are looking for the quick fuc.

v,

K D P R e c o r d F a l l 1 9 9 7

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

New

cast

le U

nive

rsity

] at

01:

56 1

9 D

ecem

ber

2014

Action research also presents challenges to the traditional research community, where the common wisdom is that college professors do research and teachers implement their findings. In reality, college professors do research, publish it, and their findings are generally ignored by practitioners.

ment of education. An educational community that is trained in the action research process is continually looking for ways to improve. They empirically examine potential improvements, adopting those that work and discarding those that do not. In the process of imple- menting an action research mode of operation, teachers increase their control over their lives and improve their stature in the educational

The promise of action research is the long-term, steady improve-

References Allen, J., and B. Shockley. 1994. Becoming a community

of researchers. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New Orleans, 4-8 April.

Studyingyour own school: An educator'sguide to qualitative practitioner research. Thousand Oaks, Calif.: Corwin Press.

Bartell, C. A. 1990. Action research: Cases of effective teaching practices. Teacher Education Quarter4 17( 1 ) :

Anderson, G. L., K. Herr, and A. S. Nihlen. 1994.

79-91, Cameronjones, M. 1983. A researching profession? The growth of classroom action research. Paper presented at the Seminar on Pedagogy, Glasgow, Scotland, 10 December. ERIC ED 266 138.

Cook, A. 1994. Whose story gets told? Rethinking research on schools. Education Week, 19 January, 48, 34.

Dewey, J. 193 1 . The way out of educational confiion. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press.

Elliott, J. 1989. Academic and action-research: The training workshop as an exercise in ideological deconstruction. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, San Francisco, Calif., 27-31 March. ERIC ED 307 71.5.

Goswami, D. and P. Stillman., eds. 1987. Rechiming the chroom: Teacher research as an ageyyfor change. Upper Montclair, N.J.: Boynton/Cook.

Hale, R. L. 1992a. MYSTATstatistical applications, DOS edition Cambridge, Mass.: Course Technology.

Hale, R. L. 199213. MYSTATstutistical applications, Macintosh edition Cambridge, Mass.: Course Technol- ogy.

Hatch, J. A,, ed. 1995. Qualitative research in early childhood settings. Westport, Conn.: Praeger.

Heckman, P. E. 1996. The courage to change: Storiesfiom successful school rcform. Thousand Oaks, Calif.: Convin Press.

Hoffman, N. E., and W. M. Reed. 1994. The impact of studying, conducting and reporting action research on teacher attitudes toward research. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational

community. Participation in action research can create a real partnership between school personnel and university-based researchers. Each member has unique contributions to bring to the partnership. Such a collaboration should produce results that are accurate from a theoretical perspective and effective from a practical perspective. School personnel have the unique ability to assure the practicality of results while the university partners have the ability to fit the results into a broader theo- retical context.

research. Buckingham, United Kingdom: Open University Press. Johnson, R. T., and D. W. Johnson. 1986. Action research: Cooperative learning in the

science classroom. Science and Children 24(2): 31-32. Letiche, H. K.,J. C. Van Der Wolf, and F. X. Plooij, eds. 1991. Thepractitioner'spower

of choice in staff-development and in-service training. Lisse, The Netherlands: Swets and Zeitlinger.

Marshak, D. 1997. Action research on blockscheduling. Larchmont, N.Y.: Eye on Education.

McLean, J. E. 1995. Improving education through action research: A guidefor administrators and teachers. Thousand Oaks, Calif.: Corwin Press.

Miller, D. M., and G. J. Pine. 1990. Advancing professional inquiry for educational improvement through action research. Journal of StaffDevelopment 1 l(3): 56-6 I .

Nomte, S. E., and R. B. Stevenson, eds. 1995. Educational action research: Becoming practicaUy critical New York Teachers College Press.

Olney, R. J., and J. D. Bell. 1990. Ask the experts. . . about action research versus formal research. Business Education Forum 44(4): 8-9.

Sockett, H. 1989. The challenge to action-research. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, San Francisco, 27-31 March. ERIC ED 307 691.

Technology.

Sage.

Steagall, J. W., and R. L. Hale. 1994. MYSTATfor Windows. Cambridge, Mass.: Course

Stringer, E. 1996. Action research: A handbookforpractitioners. Thousand Oaks, Calif.:

Willis, S. 1994. The rocky road to empowerment. Update 36(2): 1.3, 8. Winter, R. 1989. Learningfiom experience: Rinciples and practice in action research. Bristol,

Penn.: Falmer Press. Zuber-Skenitt, O., ed. 1991. Action researchfor change and

development. Brookfield. Vt.: Aveburv.

Author James E. McLean is University Research Professor and Director of the Center for Educational Accountability at the University of Alabama at Birmingham. He is a member of the Mu Mu Chapter of Kappa Delta Pi. A past president of the Mid-So;& Educational Research Association, he currently serves as Co-editor of their s 2

national journal, Research in the Schoolr

Research Association, New Orleans, 4-8 April. K(ippci I)flki 1'1 H m r d 1 I { I { X

1 1')'Ii K.III I ) '~ 1hdt . i 1'1 Hopkins, D. 1993. A tcachersguidc to classroom

K D P R e c o r d . F a l l 1 9 9 7

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

New

cast

le U

nive

rsity

] at

01:

56 1

9 D

ecem

ber

2014