ACTION RESEARCH

22

Action Research: A Faculty Option with Difference

Manuel D. Punzal Introduction John Dewey, the father of progressive education once said:
Education is a social process Education is for growth Education is not just a preparation for life Education is life itself

Kurt Lewin (1948), a social scientist, from another perspective argued that social research should not focus on controlled experiments that are removed from real-life situation. Rather, social-research should be based on the action which a group of individuals adopt to improve life situations. On the other end, Stephen Corey, promptly applied Lewins concept of action research on education. He argued that traditional research, conducted mainly by researchers outside the confines of schools, do not have impact on school processes, practice and culture. Corey averred:
Learning that changes behavior substantially is most likely to result when a person himself tries to improve a situation that makes a difference to him when he defines the problem, hypothesizes actions that may help him cope with it, engages in these actions, studies the consequences, and generalizes from them, he will more frequently internalize the experience than when this is done for him by somebody else, and he reads about it The value oif action research is determined primarily by the extent to which findings lead to improvement in the practices of the people engaged in the research. (1953, p.9)

Thus, it seems action research in education is to be defined as a study in a school setting by faculty with the objective of improving instruction. Although initially, individual faculty members conducted action researches alone, the frequent practice of doing it cooperatively by groups has become more frequent.
LCCM Review

ACTION RESEARCH

23

Summing up, when Dewey defined education to be a social process, growth, and life itself, and Lewin argued that social research should be anchored on real-life situations, and therefore the findings according to Corey, lead to improvement in the practices of the people, then it is truly reasonable to conclude from Deweys perspective that education nurtures and sustains life growth and development. In this development, Sagor (1993) added that by turning to collaborative research, we can renew our commitment to thoughtful teaching and also begin developing an active community of professionals. Collegial Supervision is an Ally to Action Research In the past supervision of teachers and the instruction process is based on the conventional model which is hierarchical relationship between teachers and formally designated academic managers and supervisors. The traditional paradigm prevalently attempts to control teachers instructional behaviors. The historic role of instructional supervision has been predominantly focused on inspection and step-by-step direction of what and how to do. Teachers are saddled with bureaucratic procedures and paperwork. Teachers lack free choice, creative contribution, and challenging role in the instructional implementation and improvement processes. Today, there is a remarkable paradigm shift toward collegial model even though conventional or traditional schools still abound and thrive. This collegial type of schools are seen demonstrating more democratic, collaborative, and purposeful interactions between adult individuals committed professionally to the endreceivers of education, namely, the students. These collegial institutions provide teaching and learning goals for all students in consonance with education philosophy and principles in a democratic society. These collegial-type of academic institutions emphasize the teachers growth and professional development rather than their strict compliance with established rules and procedures. The education managers and leaders of today refrain from restrictive tell and sell approach to instructional supervision. Instead they

LCCM Review

ACTION RESEARCH

24

regularly practice leadership by influence and interdependence behavioral processes rather than a role or position function. Hence, in the instructional area of responsibility, problemsolving and decision-making are shared with teachers, in the interpersonal milieu of coaching, reflective inquiry, collaborative investigation of issues, study teams, and explorations into the world of uncertainty. It is a position-free interaction wherein the underlying spirit is one of genuine inquiry, unbiased opinion, acceptance of alternative solutions, and consensus on choosing the one decision that is the right thing in the emergent situation. SuperVision the New Name for Collegial Supervision The concept SuperVision is coined by Glickman (2002) as a term that denotes a common vision of what teaching and learning can and should be, developed collaboratively by formally designated supervisors, teachers, and other members of the school community. The word also signifies that:
these same persons will work together to make their vision a reality to build a democratic community of learning based on moral principles calling for all students to be educated in a manner enabling them to lead fulfilling lives and be contributing members of a democratic society. (p.9)

For Glickman, SuperVision is the function in schools that bonds together the interdependent elements of instructional process into an effective and holistic school action. Research established the reality that those schools that link their instruction with teacher professional development, supervisor direct assistance to teachers, curriculum development, peer development, and action research under a common purpose achieve their goals and objectives. From the context of the preceding paragraphs, a conclusion can be made that SuperVision is a vital link between individual teacher needs and organizational goals so that teachers and other contributors to learning process can collaboratively work toward their vision of what the school should be and do. In the preceding paragraph, we can also presume that action research comes about as a cooperative undertaking between teachers and students using their own classrooms as laboratories with direct assistance of the instruction supervisor.
LCCM Review

ACTION RESEARCH

25

Collaborative research is critically dependent on developmental and collegial supervisors who nurture purposeful interaction between adults, the supervisor himself/herself and faculty members. Professionalism and mutual recognition of teaching competency is the nurturing and sustaining environment for discussion of issues and problems affecting instruction with open mind to hammer out alternative solutions beneficial to student learning. Hence, action research in education setting is primarily conducted to improve instruction, to enhance the acquisition of learning of the students. Action research implies that the practitioners are the researchers who are teacher-led. Hubbard and Power (1993) observing the power of teacher-led research wrote: Teachers throughout the world are developing professionally by becoming teacher-researchers... a wonderful new breed of artists in residence. This is in reference to teachers who use their classroom as venue of their research activity. This is another paradigm shift from the traditional research endeavors. Glickman (2002) drew up a comparison picture between traditional research and action research as exhibited in Table 1.
Table 1 Comparison of Traditional Research and Action Research Traditional Research
Usually led by Purpose Outside expert Develop new knowledge

Action Research Practitioners Solve practical problems, improve practice Quantitative or qualitative Explore practical problem, guide action planning, evaluate results The research results in desired change Members of the school community

Types of data gathered Purpose of gathering and analyzing data Standard for quality research Primary audience(s)

Quantitative or qualitative Gain better understanding of phenomenon, develop or test hypothesis Peer review of methods and results Other researchers, the profession, government or private agencies

LCCM Review

ACTION RESEARCH

26

The Steps in the Conduct of Action Research Step One: Identification of the Focus Area The area to be selected is the one needing improvement in the teaching-learning process Step Two: Conduct of Needs Assessment The purpose of data gathering is to understand the problem and plan how it could be solved as well as gather baseline data to facilitate evaluation of improvement efforts. Step Three: Design of Action Plan The action plan is in view of solving the problem which includes the evaluation of success factors of the improvement endeavor. Step Four: Implementation of Action Plan The plan is carried out as designed. Step Five: Results Evaluation The data on the results of the action plan are subjected to analysis and evaluation. Based on this, the objective of the action plan and activities may be continued, expanded, revised, or discontinued.

The Role of Deans and Principals in the Conduct of Action Research The academic managers or instruction supervisors predisposed to applying collaborative interpersonal behaviors share problem-solving and decision-making responsibility with teachers. Thus collaborative supervision is premised on participation of equals in solving instructional issues and making decisions. The outcome of collaborative effort is a plan consensually forged by supervisors and teachers. Glickman identified the supervisors collaborative interpersonal behaviors as the positive attitude of clarifying, listening, reflecting, presenting, problem-solving, negotiating, and standardizing.

LCCM Review

ACTION RESEARCH

27

He defines each category as follows:

1. Listening: The supervisor sits and looks at the speaker and nods his/her head showing understanding. Gutteral utterances (u\huh,umm) also indicate listening. 2. Clarifying: The supervisor asks questions and statements to clarify the speakers point-of-view: Do you mean that? Would you explain this further?, Im confused about this, I lost you 3. Encouraging: The supervisor provides acknowledgement responses that help the speaker continue to explain his or her positions: Yes, Im following you., Continue on., Ah, I see what you are saying; tell me more. 4. Reflecting: The supervisor summarizes and paraphrases the speakers message for verification of accuracy: I understand that you mean, So, the issue is, I hear you saying 5. Presenting: The supervisor gives his or her own idea about the issue being discussed: This is how I see it., What can be done is. Id like us to consider, I believe that 6. Problem-solving: The supervisor takes the initiative, usually after a preliminary discussion of the issue or problem, in pressing all those involved to generate a list of possible solutions. This is usually done through statements such as: Lets stop and each write down what can be done., What ideas do we have to solve this problem?, Lets think of all possible actions we can take. 7. Negotiating: The supervisor moves the discussion from possible to probable solutions by discussing the consequences of each proposed action, exploring conflicts or priorities, and narrowing down choices with questions such as: Where do we agree?, How can we change that action to be acceptable to all?, Can we find a compromise that will give each of us part of what we want? 8. Directing: The supervisor tells the participants either what the choices are: As I see it, these are the alternatives: You could A, B, or C Which of these make the most sense to you and which will you use? Or the supervisor tells the participants what is to be done: Ive decided that we will do, I want you to do, The policy will be, This is how it is going to be.. We will proceed as follows.

LCCM Review

ACTION RESEARCH

28

9. Standardizing: The supervisor sets the expected criteria and time for the decision to be implemented. Target objectives and expectations are conveyed with words, such as: By next Monday, we want to see, Report back to me by, I want an improvement of 25 percent involvement by the next meeting., We have agreed that all tasks will be done before the next observation. 10. Reinforcing: The supervisor strengthens the directive and the criteria to be met by telling possible consequences. Possible consequences can be positive, in the form of praise: I know you can do it!, I have confidence in your ability!, I want to show others what youve done!. Consequences also can be negative: If its not done on time, well lose the support of, It must be understood that failure to get done on time will result in

The categories of interpersonal behavior of a developmentoriented supervisor presented above move the supervisor and the teacher(s) toward a decision on matters or issues of instructional improvement. Some behaviors of a supervisor put more responsibility on the teacher(s) for the problem-solving or decision-making; other mandates are more on the supervisor to act; and still others indicate a shared responsibility for both the teacher(s) and the supervisor. When a supervisor listens to the teacher, clarifies what the teacher says, encourages the teacher to speak more about the issue, and reflects by validating the teachers perceptions, it then demonstrates truly that the teacher is in control. And the role of the supervisor, in most parts, is to act as a prober or sounding board for the teacher to make his/her own decision. This is viewed as a nondirective interpersonal approach. When a supervisor applies nondirective behaviors to understand the teachers side on the issue or matter at hand, involves himself/herself in the discussion by presenting his or her own viewpoints, problem solving by asking all participants to propose alternative solutions, and then negotiating to discover a common course of action that are acceptable to both of them, then the control over the final action is jointly shared by all. This is seen as a collaborative interpersonal approach.

LCCM Review

ACTION RESEARCH

29

Collaboration is appropriate when teachers and supervisors have a similar level of expertise, involvement, and concern with a problem in teaching-learning process. Since action research involves teachers making their own decision about issues on instructional improvement, controlled and directive supervision will stymie action research. Teachers of very low levels of personal and intellectual development, expertise, and commitment are probably unprepared to engage in action research. They will need some direct assistance and intensive training to be able to make minimal decision-making capacity and motivation necessary for successful conduct of action research. For this category of teachers, the supervisor can use directive informational supervision while suggesting alternative goals, data-collection and analysis methods, and action plans and then directing teachers to choose from sets of alternatives. In the case of teachers of moderate or mixed levels of development, expertise, and commitment, the supervisor can apply collaborative action research. In this situation, the supervisor engages in joint decision-making with teachers during the goal identification, action planning, implementation, evaluation, and revision stages of action research. Even collaborative action is a transitional form of teacher inquiry. The ultimate intention is for the faculty member to attain levels of development, expertise, and commitment that allow teacher-driven research, in which the dean or principal uses nondirective supervision to enhance teacher decision-making during each of the steps of action research. Houser (1990) gave a description of full-fledged teacher-researchers as those who initiate every aspect of the research project are responsible for formulating the questions, selecting the (research) tools, and collecting, analyzing, and interpreting the data. Planning and Deciding on Action Research Before starting an action research, the dean or instruction supervisor should choose an appropriate entry strategy for deciding and implementing the research activity. The choice of interpersonal approach to apply with the teacher-research team has to be established. Glickman (2002 p.320) offers a guide presented in Table 2.
LCCM Review

ACTION RESEARCH

30

Table 2 Choosing an Interpersonal Approach

Interpersonal Behaviors Nondirective: Listening Reflecting Clarifying Encouraging Collaborative: Presenting Problem-Solving Negotiating Directive Informational: Presenting Problem-Solving Directing of Alternatives Characteristics of Teachers Levels of development Expertise Commitment Low Teacher / High Supervisor Equal Teacher / Equal Supervisor Decision High for Teacher / Low for Supervisor

After determining the entry strategy, the research team undertakes a needs assessment of faculty and gathers a baseline data to determine goals for improvement of instruction. The techniques for conducting a needs assessment can be selected from the list that follows:

Eyes and ears Systematic classroom and school observations Revisit of school records Review of teacher and student work outputs Review of a third party Open ended written survey Check of ranking lists Cause and effect incident reports Delphi technique Flowcharts

LCCM Review

ACTION RESEARCH

31

Next, the research team has to meet and determine its position vis--vis the four questions that address the supervisory task: 1. What type and frequency of direct assistance a supervisor must extend to teachers to achieve instructional goals? 2. What meetings and discussion need to be arranged as a component of group development endeavors for faculty to contribute and share to attain instructional goals? 3. What professional development interventions, such as inservice seminars, lectures, workshops, training modules, demonstrations, and visits need to be provided for faculty to achieve instructional goals? 4. What is the necessary curriculum development, in terms of course, content, guidelines, lesson plans, and instructional materials to attain instructional goals? Third, the team comes up with a plan relating to activities and goals. The plan can include any of the following techniques:

Management by objectives (MBO) Strategic planning Gant chart Affinity diagrams Planning, doing, studying, and acting cycle (PDSA) Gantt chart

Fourth, the team determines ways to monitor progress of the action plan as it is implemented in the instruction/classroom. Observations can be conducted using the following approaches:

Formative observation instrument meant to describe what is occurring in a classroom consistent with what teacher and supervisor agreed to focus on and later discuss. Quantitative observations are ways of measuring classroom events, behaviors, and objects which observations can be used for statistical operations eventually.

LCCM Review

ACTION RESEARCH

32

Categorical frequency Instrument which defines certain events or behaviors that can be checked off at frequency interval and then counted. This form is exhibited in the table below based on Blooms taxonomy.

Table 4 Frequency Interval Form Question Category Evaluation Synthesis Analysis Application Interpretation Translation Memory Total of Questions: Tally / / // /// //// ///// //// 20 Total 0 1 1 2 3 4 9 Percent 0 5 5 10 15 20 45

Fifth, the team comes up with an evaluation design that will facilitate the analysis of data, determination whether objectives are met, and what further actions are needed to be undertaken. Such design can be quantitative, qualitative, or combination of the two. Questions to be posed in evaluating include the following:
What is the purpose of evaluation? Who will evaluate? What questions need to be answered? What and how with the data be gathered? How will the data be analyzed? How will the evaluation be reported?

LCCM Review

ACTION RESEARCH

33

An Example of Action Research Sacred Heart Academy (SHA) is located in the outskirts of Iligan City in Mindanao. It serves students of various ethnic groups. Although the inner town population is mostly Christians, the Muslim community is rather big. SHA also serves children of well-to-do families, of managers and supervisors of big businesses and manufacturing companies located in Iligan City and the suburbs. The goal of action research at SHA was to improve the schools balanced reading program. Needs assessment data gathered included student results on two reading tests, indicating that a large number of students were reading below grade level. Data on teacher perceptions of the reading program was gathered through surveys and interviews. Based on the needs assessment, the action plan called for acquisition of additional resources for the reading program, professional development for teachers, and more extensive monitoring of the program. In the first component of the action plan, teachers participated in discussion groups to identify needed resources. In response to these meetings, new nonfiction and fiction books, books on tape, and a variety of new instructional materials were added to the program. The professional development component included monthly meetings of support groups in which teachers learned new strategies, discussed common concerns, and compared notes. Balanced reading also was discussed at general faculty and vertical team meetings. A supervisor served as a mentor and coach for new teachers, providing assistance as they implemented balanced reading. Two literacy specialists served as support persons to all teachers, leading support groups, teaching demonstration lessons, and visiting classrooms. Teachers visited nearby schools to observe balanced reading lessons, and attended national reading programs. The last component of the action plan was improved monitoring of the reading program. This included supervisors and reading specialist observing classrooms, to determine if balanced reading was being implemented effectively, and also to make sure that teachers were receiving the resources and support they needed. Teachers played a major role in monitoring. They
LCCM Review

ACTION RESEARCH

34

assessed student progress daily by analyzing student work samples, keeping anecdotal records, and listening to students oral reading. Additionally, teachers used a standardized reading assessment to measure students reading levels in June, October, February, and March. Year-end evaluation of the action research included teacher surveys and interviews as well as pre-post comparisons of student reading levels. Teachers reposted a high commitment to balanced reading, understanding of the reading program, a confidence in their ability to implement the program. The teachers stated that they now had the adequate materials to implement balanced reading, and that strategies they learned through professional development enabled the, to understand strengths and needs of students and to individualize student learning. Analysis of student achievement data supported teacher perceptions. Over the school years there were increases in the percentage of students including the percentage of economically disadvantaged students reading on or above grade level. By the end of the school year 85 percent of all students were reading on or above grade level.

References Bennet, N. & Harris, A. (1997). Hearing truth from power: Organization theory, school effectiveness, and school improvement. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Research Association. Chicago. Covey, E.R. (1990). Principle-centered leadership. New York: Free Press. Dryfoos, J. (2002). Full-service community schools: Creating new institutions. Phi Delta Kappan. Glickman, C.D. (1993). Renewing Americas schools: A guide for school based actions. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Glickman, C.D. (2002). The courage to lead. Educational Leadership: Beyond instructional leadership, 59 (8), 41-44.

LCCM Review

ACTION RESEARCH

35

Grenier, L.E. (1967). Patterns of organizational change. Harvard Business Review, 45, 119-130. Hansman, C.A. (2001). Context-based learning. In Meriam,S. (Ed.). The new update on adult learning theory. New directions for adult and continuing education, No. 89. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Herzberg, F. (1987). One more time, how do you motivate employees? Harvard Business Review, 65 (5), 109-120. Knowles, M.S. (1980). The modern practice of adult education: from pedagogy to androgogy (2nd ed), Chicago: Association/Folert. Maslow, A.H. (1954). Motivation and Personality. New York: Harper & Row. Maxwell, J.C. (1998). The 21 irrefutable laws of leadership. Nashville: Thomas Nelson Publishers. McEvoy, B. (1986). Against our better judgment. Three teachers: enactment of mandated curriculum. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association. San Francisco, CA. Milter, J.P. & Seller, W. (1998). Curriculum: Perspective and practice. New York: Longman. Sergiovanni, T. (1987). Introduction to the Breckinridge Conference on restructioning of schools. San Antonio. Sizer, T. R. (1984). Horaces compromise: The dilemma of the American high schools. Boston: Houghton Mifflin. Sternberg, R. S. (1985). Beyond I.Q.: A trichiatric theory of human intelligence. New York: Vikings. Tanner, D. & Tanner, L. W.(1980). Curriculum development: Theory into practice (2nd ed.). Upper Saddle River. NJ: Pearson Education.

LCCM Review