action research cycles
Action Research Cycles | Jerry Talandis Jr. | April 29th, 2001
Hello Fellow FNDers,
Jerry Talandis here. I've come to Unit 4, Task 1, where Julian says to comment on the "action reserch cycles" diagram on page 109 before reading his comments. So, here they are. I'm writing this before I read on to Julian's analysis, off the top of my head, based on my own experiences. If anyone could respond and let me know what you think of this diagram, I'd be very happy.
Task: "Read through the diagram and see what it means to you."
Well, it seems that a science teacher has spotted a problem- her students aren't learning in the way she wants them to. They are "recalling facts rather than a process of enquiry." She wants to get her students to be more than mindless automatons. She would like them to use the scientific process as a means of exploring life.
The first thing that struck me was "why bother?" Why go through all the trouble of doing this research? There could be several motivating factors. I'd like to think that the teacher is a good one, in that she is ready to go through the trouble of doing this research for the sake of her students. Many teachers would not bother and continue "going through the motions," content to collect that paycheck. Not this one. So, one big motivation for action research seems to come from that sense of caring one has, from that place inside that seeks to contribute to the betterment of humanity. There are other reasons for going through with it, but for me, anyway, this is the most powerful.
So, the teacher decides to shift her questioning strategy to get her students to think more for themselves. Great idea! This would certainly, it seems, be a step toward accomplishing her overall goals. "I'm going to make a difference in their lives," she thinks, and begins her research with high hopes and enthusiasm.
The teacher begins her new approach suddenly, throwing questions at her students in new ways, encouraging them to open up. Dutifully, she records the questions and responses on tape for a while to keep track of how this new approach is going. She also keeps a journal to aid in recording the process. She is looking actively for signs that her ideas are working.
But, things don't go smoothly. Perhaps her students were thrown off balance by the sudden change of pace. They were used to showing up and "taking a mental period off," but now they suddenly have to actually do some work! Some might like this, but others are, perhaps, perturbed. People woken suddenly from a slumber are often crabby. As a result, with all controls loosed, things kind of go wild for a while there.
Some students take advantage of this new "freedom" and exercise their right not to participate, which creates havoc in the classroom. As a result, the teacher has to throttle back on her new approach,
re-instilling some of the control she had before. Perhaps this is a frustrating moment for her. She took a risk, put trust in her students, and they betrayed her!
The teacher decides to modify her approach. Perhaps she gave them too much too soon too suddenly. "Lets try to decrease the number of control statements and see what happens," she thinks. "I'm not ready to give up!" She goes about her modified plan and records the changes, as before.
Again, the students don't respond as hoped. "Why not? What's wrong?" The teacher ponders different reasons.
I've been at this point myself in my job of teaching English to Japanese college kids. It's very frustrating, as you know what you are doing is good, but still there is no response. At these times I realize how deep-rooted various problems are, and the inability of certain students to learn as I'd like them to. There are many reasons why my students don't perform, and most of those inhibiting factors are beyond my control. Some of them are an overall lack of or unclear motivation, lack of maturity and discipline, problems with family, friends, or a poor self-esteem. Others problems are institutionally based. Perhaps a majority of teachers teach in poor ways, making it all the more difficult to see any progress in your classes. There are so many things inhibiting learning it's a miracle that learning can happen at all!
I also realize how much of my own ego is caught up in this situation. On one level, I need to see positive change in order to validate my sense of being a good teacher. "I want to make a difference," so I need certain responses from my students in order to give me this satisfaction. Problem is, their behaviors are not something I can control. If my satisfaction as a teacher depends on others behaving in certain ways, then I'm setting myself up for disappointment. In the end, I often feel angry at myself for putting myself in a bad situation, placing my satisfaction out of my own hands. I find that I often have to reconfigure what success means and come up with new goals that are more realistic and achievable.
In the end, the teacher ponders different factors deeply. "How can I keep my students on track," she wonders. "How can I trust them and have them return my trust? What is it that I really want, anyway? Am I really focused on my students, or am I just looking for a way to massage my ego? (the trouble with this point is that your intentions are never perfectly pure) What can I realistically expect from them? How can I redifine success and then act toward achieving it?
In the end, if all goes well, the teacher benefits from her student's resistances. After much trial and tribulation, she accepts her situation and begins to appreciate it. She feels gratitude for having received an opportunity to delve deeply into her situation, and with perseverance and courage, she comes up with new plans of action.
Or, she bags the whole thing, realizing that she was in over her head, quits her job and sets off on a new career!
Either way, lots of learning took place.
Anyway, this is a very interesting situation. Any comments out there from fellow FNDers, past or present?
Sincerely,
Jerry
PS: Now I can't wait to read what Julian wrote!
Re: Action Research Cycles | Barry Wolford | May 3rd, 2001
Hi, Jerry,
I felt your question raised some fundamental issues- particularly in light of the centrality of Action Research in our programme- and since no one has so far picked up the ball and run with it, perhaps I should contribute to the action myself (rather than retiring again to lurk in the wings).
My response to the model was as follows:
The model starts with a plan, whereas the teacher had evidently started with observation and reflection; it seemed that the teacher was painfully aware of a problem. But the choices of action the model presents seem artificial and unrealistic ("What do I do? Change the curriculum or change what I'm doing?"). Well that's a no-brainer, for a start- shall I change society or see what's wrong with me first?
The diagram, to make its point, oversimplifies the process. The alternative to changing the world is for the teacher to change the way s/he asks questions. An acute observation is hidden there, for we don't see any other practicable changes the teacher might have considered, and determining what to try seems to be the real difficulty.
Past that, my "off the top of my head" reaction was similar to your own: it was admirable that the teacher cared enough to try for change rather than just playing safe and doing what she was used to. It seemed that the decision to change question style was a perceptive one resulting from some consideration, and was probably a good direction to aim for. This is so because the science students in question were evidently focused on the what to the exclusion of the why of the subject. The teacher was idealistic enough to feel they were not just empty vessels to be stuffed with information.
Granted the initial decision to try to change/improve matters, the rest of the cycle - and indeed its recursive/reiterative pattern- seems self-evident. In fact, perhaps the hardest part is seeing that a change is required (since teachers tend to establish a routine and keep on doing things that way) and deciding what sort of change is needed to address the problem. The rest naturally follows: try out the change and see if it works. If the change is really needed and an appropriate kind of change is tried, it is likely to have some degree of success. It is unlikely that everything will be perfect straight away, and in any case the relative success of the change needs to be evaluated. So the teacher observes (in this case in a way that allows him/her to continue teaching effectively, by recording interactions) and analyses (reflects on) what has developed.
Naturally enough, change one thing in a complex classroom interactive environment with many variables, and other- perhaps unanticipated- things will change too. This is what happens. So the teacher works out what has to be modified next: Either the original change was inappropriate or something else has to change to help it work. In this instance, the teacher decides that the original change was necessary, but something else must be tried to help things along. Thus a new change is initiated and a new process of observation, analysis etc begins.
However, as you suggest, in the example given the teacher could have anticipated the problems that occurred: suddenly the students are given more latitude (freedom of response) than they have been used to. They exploit the novelty and the opportunities this seems to provide, likely seeing it as a bit of fun and a break in routine rather than a genuine attempt to benefit them educationally. The problem is that teachers also hide behind established routines, because the rules of interaction then become very firmly established and discipline is enhanced. Children generally want to know where they stand and expect a certain kind of order and predictability in their lives. As you say, "things go wild", for whatever reason.
What is more surprising is the teacher's response, in deciding to reduce control statements (whatever these specifically may be- the model doesn't give examples), no doubt based on an awareness of them derived from the recordings made earlier. I took this differently from the way you did: I saw the teacher as "easing up" still further. This seemed surprising in that the problem appeared to be one of insufficient rather than excessive control. So the cycle continues: action, observation, reflection/analysis, and the need for a new plan. Not surprisingly, perhaps, the students are found to be even more "unruly"!
What was useful in studying the diagram, then? Well, it stressed that action research is a reiterative/recursive process, of observing, reflecting, hypothesizing, planning, and acting (testing the hypothesis), and that perhaps we should not expect it to provide the immediate remedies we might hope for. Change involves risk and the unexpected.
This following bit represents my views having gone on to read the unit and a number of its cited texts, so is less my gut response than a more reflective one.
AR suddenly seems a particularly appropriate way of approaching a distance master's, firstly because we are all already in differen teaching contexts, so merely mugging up on general theories cannot satisfy all participants' needs (Yes, I'm becoming a convert, but wait till I have to try it! It also sounds challenging).
Secondly, because teaching is always a quest for improvement, not so much to find the best way as to find a better way. The cyclical concept underlying AR, our readings emphasise, establishes it as more often a process from which we shouldn't necessarily expect to find a conclusive solution to our problem or puzzle. As you say, it appears as though the teacher in the model is both admirable in seeking to improve her practice and doomed to disappointment in trying. But along the way she is discovering things she probably never considered before.
Perhaps the cyclical image is misleading ("Here we go again!") and one could conceive the process as a upward spiral ("At least we're going somewhere!") since it leads to no pre-determined completion, and therefore has a beginning but no end. In this sense, surely, it is a reflection of/on teaching itself, and we have not quit despite the frustration, or else why are we pursuing a higher degree (of frustration, perhaps)? We are not perfectible, but it's better to aspire than to stagnate.
An over-generously appreciative Malaysian student of mine some 2-3 years ago suggested I join her in pursuing a Master of Laws degree. My academic writing course, she averred, was well set up, and I should look after myself rather than continuing working so hard for so little. Someone else could do the donkey-work of photocopying handouts etc while I applied my time and thought to some other, more rewarding area of endeavour that would give me a better future. Yes, she was saying that the answer is to "bag the whole thing" and start a new career; but she had done so herself! She was a mature student, an escapee from the classroom after more years of teaching than I had myself. Years later I am still modifying my course, reviewing what I do and how I do it, and sometimes I do think, "Yes, this is a futile pursuit!"
Yet, looking back, there was heaps at fault with the course as it was then, and there is no doubt plenty wrong with it now. The student was flattering, to say the least. I don't want out, because I value (important aspects of) what I do. And if I merely continued giving out the same old materials and functioning on autopilot, I would have succumbed to the roboticism that Prabhu refers to: "The enemy of good teaching is not a bad method, but overroutinisation." (1990, p.174, ref. in FND3). I would still take the pay-cheque, such as it is, but I would not take any satisfaction, nor retain any self-respect, let alone that of my students.
In fact, a recurring theme in the AR readings is that of breaking routine. Myers (citing the development by Thomas & Harri-Augstein, 1991, of Self-organised Learning) suggests the need to "de-robotise" behaviour by developing awareness and control of and argues that AR can help us do this. Myers also suggests approaches to breaking out of our unconscious mind-sets. At first I thought, "Very interesting, but how does all this tie in with action research?" But of course it does. Nunan makes the connection more explicit for me when he outlines his LIPT project (Table 4) in which teachers are asked to reflect on and critique their own and others' practice; they are then shown how to identify their implicit ideological beliefs/attitudes. The procedure is discussed in more detail in his paper "Action research in the language classroom" (1990, in J.C. Richards & D. Nunan: Second language teacher education, Ch.5, pp.68-69) As you point out, "my own ego is caught up in this situation", so this (AR) process would appear to offer an entry point to examining this particular web of motives and interactions- and habits. See Altrichter et al., Ch.4, particularly on causal vs systemic relationships (pp.54-55): I found this an interesting perspective. There seem to be similarities with concepts relating to Alternative Dispute Resolution and conflict management.
Further, because we are assured that AR does not lead necessarily where we predict it will, what is found en route may turn out to be more interesting than what we set out to find (I assume some kind of serendipity). But whatever is found, I imagine, is not an end, but a beginning.
What does concern me is a remark by John Holt describing his experience of trying out a new approach in class, when the approach became more important than the learners:
"Instead of a forty year old human being in a room full of ten-year old human beings I was now a scientist in a room full of laboratory animals. I was no longer in the class to talk about things that interested me, or them, or enjoy what I and they were doing, but to try something out on them."
(1982; cited in Welker, The Teacher as Expert, 1992, p.74)
Was Holt just hypersensitive, or has anyone out there carrying out AR found this to be a problem? Does it seem as if your students have become guinea-pigs and, as Welker suggests, could "the learning ideas prevent learning since they impose themselves unnaturally upon the classroom situation" (p.74)? Or has the focus on "solving puzzles" injected a new stimulus into your classroom life?
I fear the former, but hope the latter.
Your ball to pick up or let lie.
Barry (too prolix again, by far)
Guinea pigs!!! | Jonathan Clifton | May 3rd, 2001
Hi Barry,
I read your stuff with interest especially the stuff at the end about; do we treat our students as guinea pigs rather then really being interested in them and improving our teaching for them. I'm replying because I have also asked myself this question.
Often I feel "guilty" about asking students to fill in questionnaires, will they think "oh he's just trying out some new idea on us rather than really teaching" I've lost the quote now but I remember reading 'something' 'somewhere' about a student who had said to a teacher doing action research 'are you interested in me or the research". (is it in some of the FND reading?)
Well, whilst I am aware of this and sure sometimes my desire to experiment is maybe more important than the concern for the particular student(s) but I feel that without this "explorative" side to my teaching (greatly accelerated by the MSc) I would still be knocking out the PPP stuff which in my previous teacher training experiences was presented as the way to teach and not a way of teaching among many. I'm now coming to the end of the MSC and can see how three years of AR and innovation has changed my teaching- hopefully for the better. I do think that this kind of continual questioning of my practice is the only way to "stay alive in the classroom" and prevent boredom and the "I'm only here for the pay cheque' mentality to creep in.
Best,
Jonathan
Re: Notes on Guinea pigs!! | Barry Wolford | May 4th, 2001
Hi Jonathan:
Thanks for the feedback, especially valuable as you've 'been there, done it, and felt that'. I had wondered if we FNDers should be in a separate discussion group since we're still starting out, but then we would lose the wider perspective that those who've covered more ground can offer.
Yes, I'm sure AR is, as you indicate, a question of motives: you're sincerely driven to make a difference, and the only effective way of achieving that is to find out what's really going on. The analogy of guinea pigs was unfortunate, but was a direct response to Holt's metaphorical expression of what he felt he was doing. Of course I've never viewed my students as such, although in earlier days in state education I might have perceived a number of them as somewhat less innocuous creatures! Packs of wolves baying for the blood of new teachers, perhaps. But even wolves are misunderstood.
There are, besides, ethical issues underlying how we should go about research as soon as it involves other human beings so that it preserves dignity, respects rights and confidentialities etc. (this isn't a forum for animal rights, so I'll leave that can of worms to Peter Singer). This removes us from the domain of animal research and seeks to ensure we are not merely exploitative.
Holt comes across through Welker's report as humanistic, and perhaps therefore rather hard on himself (the guilt thing you mention). I'd like to read him first-hand (and so much else besides). Participative action research seems to try to resolve the researcher-subject (object?) dichotomy. Theoretical research removed from the contextual realities perhaps did not have to deal with such questions, with teachers left to try out the results of research maybe never trialed in the classroom. I'm sure the majority of one's students can sense the sincerity or otherwise of what one is at. Perhaps it helps to keep them informed as to what you're up to and why you're doing it.
I'm pleased to learn that AR has proved developmental for you: this is what I'm hoping for myself. I've "miles to go..." (Robert Frost)
Out for now.
Regards,
Barry
Petra | Jake Kimball | May 4th, 2001
Jonathons memory is correct. The story of Petra was in the final reading of the FND. (Cumming:1994 TQ 28/4:693-6). It's an article on Participatory Action Research (PAR) and how it differs from Action Research (AR).
Traditional research aids the academic/teacher because collected data is published for tenure, publication, etc. Its scope is somewhat limited to 'self-reflectivity' which may later find its way back into the classroom as a pedagogical change in teacher performance. Subjects of study are really objects. In PAR, the main idea is to include "learner involvement and social change." It's meant to be a collective experience.
It's only a few pages and well worth looking at again.
Jake
Experimentation in the classroom | John Bartrick | May 8th, 2001
Thanks to Barry for the burst of enthusiastic comments from down-under. Ooops there goes that culturally specific northern hemisphere view of the world again!
I wanted to pick up on the recent discussion of action research and experimentation in the classroom, mentioned by Jerry and Barry.
Barry said,
What does concern me is a remark by John Holt describing his experience of trying out a new approach in class, when the approach became more important than the learners:
"Instead of a forty year old human being in a room full of ten-year old human beings I was now a scientist in a room full of laboratory animals. I was no longer in the class to talk about things that interested me, or them, or enjoy what I and they were doing, but to try something out on them."
The problem I find with Holt's statement here is that he seems to be setting up a contrast between two types of teacher behaviour. On the one hand there are times when teachers "do their jobs" competently and everybody is happy. On the other hand there are times for experimentation when the teacher is not exactly sure what will result and the students get a bit of a raw deal.
My experience with Action Research though, has made me very skeptical of this type of differentiation. Ironically the admission "I'm not really sure what's happening, but I'm going to spend some time and effort investigating it," is probably the "healthier" of the two options.
What I'm getting at here is that we, as teachers, can be easily deceived about what is happening in our classroom, and may shy away from research or experimentation by thinking "Why try and fix it if it's not broken!"
Action Research, however, does not involve throwing out all one's tried and tested techniques, but adopting a more critical attitude to why some things work and others don't. Nor is "doing research" an alternative to "doing a lesson", but something which ideally should be part of the process of evaluation of our materials and methodology.
In The Learning Teaching Matrix (1995:CUP ) Jack Richards states,
"Self-monitoring can help narrow the gap between teachers' imagined view of their own teaching and reality- a gap that is often considerable. Swaffar et al (1982) found that although teachers may be using different methodological approaches and may think they are therefore employing different classroom practices, on closer examination their actual classroom practices reflect a pool of common instructional behaviours." (118-119)
So, I don't think we should be worried by the laboratory animals view of experimentation in the classroom. If we continue with our trusted teaching routines day in day out, the alternative may inflict greater "cruelty" on our learners in the long run.
All the best,
John Bartrick
Ioannina, Greece
Re: Action Research Cycles | Jerry Talandis Jr. | May 9th, 2001
Hi Barry,
This is Jerry Talandis Jr, writing from Toyama, Japan. Thanks for responding so eloquently to my post about the AR model in FND4. Wow! You are a great writer, and have a lot of good things to say. While I'm at it, I also want to say thanks for your study skills post as well. You have a very sophisticated technique and got me thinking a lot about how I do things.
About your response to the AR Model:
("What do I do? Change the curriculum or change what I'm doing?"). Well that's a no-brainer, for a start - shall I change society or see what's wrong with me first?
I must agree with this point. The best you can do is change yourself, and since "we are the world" (as the song goes), we change the world by changing ourselves. At any rate, focusing on what I'm doing and how I can do it better gives me a feeling of control that I need. I can set realistic goals, and then when things don't work out, I have the power to alter course. Then, if my actions are true, hopefully others will be inspired and benefit in some way. I think that's basically how things work...
for we don't see any other practicable changes the teacher might have considered, and determining what to try seems to be the real difficulty.
Yes, getting started is always the hard part! I think that model was simplified just to make a basic point. Real life is always harder than models or diagrams make things out to be!
Naturally enough, change one thing in a complex classroom interactive environment with many variables, and other - perhaps unanticipated - things will change too. This is what happens.
Definitely! Everything seems tightly woven. If you pull one string, another unravels. An example of this was when my wife and I were building our house. We wanted to remove this post that was in our kitchen, and we could have done so by redesigning things. But, had we done so, we would have created other problems- for example, the kitchen would no longer be facing the living room, an important feature...
I think awareness of this phenomenon is important before setting out on research. You can go in with all kinds of good ideas, but you have to realize that every situation has its advantages and disadvantages. You can shift things around, but there will always be advantages and disadvantages (just different ones) Interesting!
the teacher could have anticipated the problems that occurred: suddenly the students are given more latitude (freedom of response) than they have been used to. They exploit the novelty and the opportunities this seems to provide, likely seeing it as a bit of fun and a break in routine rather than a genuine attempt to benefit them educationally.
Yes, I suppose the teacher could have anticipated the reactions of her students. Why didn't she? Well, who knows? Perhaps this was the first time she had done AR, or maybe she didn't know the students well. At any rate, I think the most important thing was that she tried. You have to start someplace, even if you know it's not perfect. This is an issue I thought about as I was considering marriage! I was so scared and put off making the decision to get married for a long time, always thinking, "I'm not ready yet." Well, that might have been true, but eventually I had to take that leap of faith and get on with it. Perhaps it was like that for the teacher- she knew that her students might run wild, but it was a risk she had to take.
AR suddenly seems a particularly appropriate way of approaching a distance master's, firstly because we are all already in different teaching contexts, so merely mugging up on general theories cannot satisfy all participants' needs (Yes, I'm becoming a convert, but wait till I have to try it! It also sounds challenging)
Yes! I totally agree! I'm becoming a convert, too. It seems the most logical way to go about things. It's empowering, as well, and has great synergy with my job and my desire to make a positive impact on my world.
Perhaps the cyclical image is misleading ("Here we go again!") and one could conceive the process as a upward spiral ("At least we're going somewhere!")
I like that way of looking at things. It seems to matter how you look at life- is the cup half-full or half-empty? Shall we "keep going down," or "move up?" It's a subtle point, but important nonetheless.
I don't want out, because I value (important aspects of) what I do. And if I merely continued giving out the same old materials and functioning on autopilot, I would have succumbed to the roboticism that Prabhu refers to: "The enemy of good teaching is not a bad method, but over routinisation." (1990, p.174, ref. in FND3). I would still take the pay-cheque, such as it is, but I would not take any satisfaction, nor retain any self-respect, let alone that of my students.
Way to hang in there! There is something to be said for staying in one place long enough to see the fruit of your actions over time. When I was in my twenties (I'm 37 now), I deeply desired to see the world. I did a lot of traveling and soaked up many experiences. Then I started getting a big case of "been there, done that." I wanted to stay in one place, make a home, and put time into a place and see it grow. This is still where I'm at; I find the more rooted you are, the deeper you can get into yourself, your family, and your community. It's kind of a paradox I experience, sort of like being able to touch the universe the more I stay still. Anyway, this is what AR is like for me- finding depth and meaning by staying still and soaking in the depths of my situation. Then, once you are good and soaked, you are in a much stronger position to connect with others who are likewise on their own journey. Very cool.
You also wrote about a lot of the AR readings. I'm in the midst of them myself. Very interesting... like you said, you need to shake up that 'ol routine a bit and take a new look at things. I have found the Myers article about Self Organized Learning to be very helpful. I should translate those questions into Japanese and have all my students answer them! I find that the problem many of my students have is that they just don't have a clue about what they want or where they want to go...
Regarding the quote by Holt:
"Instead of a forty year old human being in a room full of ten-year old human beings I was now a scientist in a room full of laboratory animals. I was no longer in the class to talk about things that interested me, or them, or enjoy what I and they were doing, but to try something out on them." (1982; cited in Welker, The Teacher as Expert, 1992, p.74)
I think that with anything you do in life, you can always go to extremes. This quote is a warning about what can happen if you get extreme about the AR thing. You can lose sight of what made you want to do it in the first place. There is a rush, I imagine, from having research go well and then having it published, gaining noteriety, prestige, etc. I can see how someone could get lost in that and forget the main point a bit. It's important to stay focused on your students and be aware of how your research effects them. That's about it, I guess. Holt was saying, in effect, "Warning- don't come here!" Important point.
So, that's enough from me for now. Thanks again for responding to my post. Take care!
Jerry
with 
and 
