The Future of Action Research in Education: A Canadian Perspective 9780228002369

Citation preview

the future of action research i n e d u c at i o n

31656_Clausen-black.indd 1

20-06-11 13:19

31656_Clausen-black.indd 2

20-06-11 13:19

The Future of Action Research in Education A Canadian Perspective

Edited by

K u rt W . C lau sen a n d G l e n da L. B lac k

McGill-­Queen’s University Press Montreal & Kingston • London • Chicago

31656_Clausen-black.indd 3

20-06-11 13:19

©  McGill-Queen’s University Press 2020 ISBN ISBN ISBN ISBN

978-0-2280-0097-6 (cloth) 978-0-2280-0098-3 (paper) 978-0-2280-0236-9 (eP DF ) 978-0-2280-0237-6 (eP UB)

Legal deposit third quarter 2020 Bibliothèque nationale du Québec Printed in Canada on acid-free paper that is 100% ancient forest free (100% post-consumer recycled), processed chlorine free This book has been published with the help of a grant from the Centre for the Study of Educational Leadership and Policy.

We acknowledge the support of the Canada Council for the Arts. Nous remercions le Conseil des arts du Canada de son soutien.

Library and Archives Canada Cataloguing in Publication Title: The future of action research in education: a Canadian perspective / edited by Kurt W. Clausen and Glenda L. Black. Names: Clausen, Kurt W., 1967– editor. | Black, Glenda L., 1959– editor. Description: Includes bibliographical references and index. Identifiers: Canadiana (print) 20200210122 | Canadiana (ebook) 2020021019X | IS BN 9780228000983 (paper) | ISB N 9780228000976 (cloth) | IS BN 9780228002369 (eP D F ) | ISB N 9780228002376 (eP UB) Subjects: LC S H: Action research—Canada. | L CS H : Education— Research—Canada. Classification: L CC L B1028.25.C 3 F 88 2020 | DD C 370.72/071—dc23

This book was typeset by Marquis Interscript in 10.5/13 Sabon.

31656_Clausen-black.indd 4

20-06-11 13:19

Contents

Tables and Figures ix

Foreword: Changing Subjects of Action Research  xi Dennis Sumara

Acknowledgments xvii Introduction 3 Kurt W. Clausen and Glenda L. Black

pa rt a   t h e h i s t o r i c a l r o o t s o f a c t i o n r e s e a r c h in canada

  1 The Uncertain World of Adult Literacy: Reflections on Twenty-Five Years of Building Action Research Networks in North America  16 B. Allan Quigley   2 Learning to Talk (Dialogically) at School: Creating the Discourse Conditions for Successful Collaborative Action Research  33 Heather Lotherington   3 Looking Back and Looking Forward: A Retrospective and Prospective of Action Research and Physical Education in the Twenty-First Century  48 Daniel B. Robinson   4 Roots and Wings: The Teacher Action Research Movement in Manitoba 77 Francine Morin

31656_Clausen-black.indd 5

20-06-11 13:19

vi Contents



pa rt b   t h e i n d i v i d u a l a n d a c t i o n r e s e a r c h

  5 Teachers as Researchers and Research Users Daniel A. Laitsch 99   6 Action Research by a Classroom Teacher: Professional Development at Its Best  112 Zoe Donoahue   7 Grassroots, Pioneers, Indigenization, and More: Why Action Research Just Makes Good Sense in Saskatchewan  123 Sheena Koops   8 Suicide Is (Never) Painless: Teachers’ Experiences on the Edge of Life and Death  141 Peter Gouzouasis and Anita Prest

pa rt c   s m a l l a n d l a r g e g r o u p r e p o rt i n g / c o l l a b o r at i o n s

  9 Emotional Labour in Collaborative Action Research: The Power of Feeling in Critical Language Education  158 Sunny Man Chu Lau 10 Teacher Candidates’ Relationships to Knowledge and to Their Practices for Critical and Activist st se Education  171 Sarah El Halwany, Majd Zouda, Chantal Pouliot, and Larry Bencze 11 The Role of Action Research Tools in Facilitating Teacher Professional Learning: An Activity Theory Analysis  194 Karen Goodnough 12 Leadership Development through Action Research: The Journey of One School District toward Collaboration, Inquiry, and Professional Learning  211 Pamela Adams 13 Mathematics and Collaborative Action Research: Findings and Considerations of Two Large-Scale Canadian Studies  232 Cathy Bruce and Tara C. Flynn

31656_Clausen-black.indd 6

20-06-11 13:19

Contents vii



pa rt d   pa rt i c i pat o r y a c t i o n r e s e a r c h

14 Performing Participatory Action Research: Stepping Forth out of Leadership 253 Lynn Fels 15 Ethics and Politics in Participatory Action Research with Youth in Education Contexts  271 Linda Eyre 16 Challenges to Equity-Based Teacher Education Initiatives: Practicum Dilemmas of Teacher Candidates  288 Manu Sharma 17 par at the Crossroads: Prospects and Possibilities  305 Steven Jordan Conclusion 319 Kurt W. Clausen and Glenda L. Black Contributors 323 Index 335

31656_Clausen-black.indd 7

20-06-11 13:19

31656_Clausen-black.indd 8

20-06-11 13:19

Tables and Figures

ta b l e s

3.1

Physical education/action research publications (by year, country, and journal)  54 11.1 Tools used by teachers during their action research projects 202 16.1 Goals of knowledge mobilization and participatory action research 293 figures

3.1 3.2

Review process and results  52 Physical education/action research publications, 2001–2015 53 5.1 Understanding the world around us  103 10.1 ST E P WI SE pedagogical framework  178 11.1 The basic unit of analysis in C H AT  198

31656_Clausen-black.indd 9

20-06-11 13:19

31656_Clausen-black.indd 10

20-06-11 13:19

Foreword

Changing Subjects of Action Research

I realized in the midst of writing this foreword that I am completing my fortieth year in the field of education – ten years as a classroom teacher and thirty in higher education, the last ten as dean of education. Reading through the chapters in this volume has been both a reminder of the important ways that Canadians have advanced the field of educational action research and also of how we have provoked that field. As I and others have argued elsewhere (2001), the co-emergence of curriculum and nation has inspired in Canada an ­openness to bibliographic inclusion in both our theoretical and methodological work. One needs only to review the citation lists of the chapters in this volume to notice how this continues to be the case. While I am cautious about essentializing the identities and work of Canadian researchers, I also believe it is important to note how our ability to value difference and diversity in our approaches to research – including educational action research – has resulted in important changes in schools, universities, and communities in Canada and elsewhere. Of course, the strength of any approach to research is its particularity – that which distinguishes it from other forms. This requires not only technical knowledge about methodological procedures but also strong understanding of the theoretical and conceptual knowledge and assumptions guiding those processes. As important – and perhaps, one could argue, most important – is knowledge of the histories of the emergence and evolution of the research methods/approaches used, with particular attention to how they were used in the specific context of historical times and situations. Most impressive and important about educational action research in Canada over the past several

31656_Clausen-black.indd 11

20-06-11 13:19

xii Foreword

decades are the ways in which researchers have demonstrated in their practice and reporting the impossibility of separating research knowledge from research participants. One could argue that what is always in the process of being transformed in educational action research is both the researchers and the problems/topics/ideas being studied/ learned. Together, the chapters in this volume show clearly the complex ways that knower, knowing, and doing co-emerge within the context of different approaches to educational action research. When Terry Carson and I edited Action Research as a Living Practice (1997), we were highly influenced by postmodern and ecological discourses in education. Today, I would suggest that these discourses continue to have influence and value, particularly at a time when we face at a global level challenges with ecological crises and technological disruption (Harari 2018). Many of us in in education are becoming increasingly worried about the amplification of wall-making over world-making. The warnings issued by Charles Taylor (1991) about the dangers of the “cult of authenticity” emerging from increased individualism and instrumentalism have become all too real – ironically creating situations in which there are experiences of losses rather than gains in personal freedoms. This has become obvious to teachers – in both K-12 and higher education – who must somehow negotiate the imperative to individualize/ personalize curriculum within a context of heightened surveillance and emphasis on external forms of assessment as validation of learning. As demonstrated in the chapters in this volume, the commonplaces created through action research practices continue to be important places for a better understanding of the complexities of educational experience. Reading through the chapters in this volume provoked a vivid recall of my own shaky start in teaching: It is early September 1980, and I have just completed another challenging week teaching Grades 8 and 9 in a small town in southern Alberta. I’m exhausted. Worried. How could this experience be so different from my student teaching experiences? Already I find myself reverting to the more instrumental “back to the basics” teaching practices that I vowed I would never use. In the midst of all the newness and many demands of daily teaching, it seems sensible to use textbooks and worksheets rather than the holistic approach that I read about during my teacher education.

31656_Clausen-black.indd 12

20-06-11 13:19

Foreword xiii

Although I did not know it at the time, what I was experiencing as a beginning teacher was not unique to me, nor was it uncommon. In fact, in 1975 – five years prior to my entry into the teaching profession – the sociologist Dan Lortie published his highly influential book Schoolteacher in which he argues that teacher’s work is highly influenced and constrained by individualism, conservatism, and presentism. Unlike other professions such as law and medicine, teachers tend to work alone in classrooms with countless interpersonal interactions with students leading to a kind of individualism that becomes tied to presentism – that is, focusing on the short term rather than the long term – ultimately leading to pedagogical conservatism. At the same time, teachers are not able to easily discern the outcomes of their work in the same way as those in other professions. Teachers do not “win” or “lose” a court case, nor do they “cure” or “not cure” a patient. Owing to the fact that most of teachers’ work is not easily known or observable and that the outcomes of teaching are complex and not easily measured, the rewards of teaching, argues Lortie, are psychic rather than material. The individual teacher will determine how to reference “success” against their own values, beliefs, experiences, and judgments – and, at the same time, will adapt them into whatever is suggested or required by school, community, and governmental stakeholders. This analysis helps to explain why teaching practice tends toward reproductions of already known practice – and also why the innovative spirit brought to schools by beginning teachers often becomes extinguished in the midst of the tyranny of the individualism and presentism described by Lortie. Looking back on my first two years of teaching, it is almost certain that I would have gone down that road had it not been for my introduction to action research by Laurie Walker from the University of Lethbridge. After a difficult start in teaching, my developing relationship with the University of Lethbridge through Laurie Walker gave life and meaning to my teaching practice. No longer was I merely focused on the immediate present, nor was I working alone. Instead, I became connected to a network of language arts researchers and teachers interested in making some fundamental changes to teaching practice. I remember it as an exhilarating time – one that eventually led me to complete both m e d and PhD degrees, the latter under the supervision of Terry Carson at the University of Alberta. It was Terry who led the charge nationally and internationally for the development of action research.

31656_Clausen-black.indd 13

20-06-11 13:19

xiv Foreword

What I came to understand early in my career is that processes of education are always both political and personal. When one takes up the position “teacher,” the tensions and challenges of negotiating one’s professional and personal knowledge within the context of established educational structures require both capability and courage. When we engage in action research practices, we are literally putting our personal and professional identities on the line – not much is hidden during processes of collaborative, participatory inquiry. The distinctions between what is known, who knows, what can be known, who has authority for knowledge, how things are known, and what is valued about knowing and knowers become less clear, and as a result, the commonplaces of learning are expanded. However, as many of the authors of these chapters show, the refusal to assign primary power or privilege to one person over others in action research practice can become fraught. There continue to be challenges in having action research approved by research ethics boards, and there continues to be suspicion within some parts of the academy about the value of action research. One cannot underestimate the value of having a text such as this one both to mark the historical contributions Canadians have made to the field of action research and to document in each chapter the different ways action research has been used and developed in Canada and, in so doing, to clearly show the strength and rigour of contemporary action research practice. The strength of this collection can be found in each of the contributions, which, although varying widely in topic and approach to representing both process and outcomes of action research, share three features that are the hallmark of excellence in action research reporting. First, each chapter situates action research within the context of a particular discipline and/or topic and at the same time within the historical and contemporary experiences of the participants. Second, each contribution includes critically reflective commentary not only on emergent findings but also on the difficulties and tensions of involvement in an explicitly co-emergent process – in which both the subjects of research and the subjectivities conducting research develop and change. Third, and, I would argue, most significant and important, the chapters are vivid examples of how action research practice can create opportunities for overcoming the now amplifying and pervasive individualism and instrumentalism in a world that is saturated with information.

31656_Clausen-black.indd 14

20-06-11 13:19

Foreword xv

The chapters in this volume are vivid demonstrations of how one’s thinking, one’s practice, and, indeed, one’s sense of self can move into a place of greater clarity and precision – ironically emerging from the often unruly and unpredictable processes of action research practices. As a whole, then, this volume depicting the recent past and current situation of action research from a uniquely Canadian perspective functions not only to report but, indeed, as an insightful interpretive forecasting of how action research practices can create needed commonplaces of inquiry to help us better understand perplexing and vexing problems in education. Dennis Sumara University of Calgary

references

Carson, Terrance, and Dennis Sumara. 1997. Action Research as a Living Practice. New York, n y: Peter Lang. Harari, Yuval Noah. 2018. 21 Lessons for the 21st Century. Toronto, on: McClelland and Stewart. Lortie, Daniel. 1975. Schoolteacher: A Sociological Study. Chicago, il: University of Chicago Press. Taylor, Charles. 1991. The Malaise of Modernity. Concord, on: Anansi Press.

31656_Clausen-black.indd 15

20-06-11 13:19

31656_Clausen-black.indd 16

20-06-11 13:19

Acknowledgments

Anyone who has undertaken the role of a book editor quickly realizes that it is not a solitary endeavour. While their names may go on the cover, they never forget the many stakeholders and supporters that all help to get the work to completion. Such is certainly the case with this book, and we would like to thank them for all their aid and assistance. First, we would like to thank Jonathan Crago, editor in chief of McGill-Queen’s University Press, and his staff for championing this work from the beginning and seeing it through to the end. From initial drafts to final publication, they have been invaluable in this journey. All of the contributors to the book’s seventeen chapters have also truly played the role of participants in the creation of the book rather than merely acting as contributors to some accretion. Many times, as a whole or in part, this motley crew has met, discussed, debated, presented, and revised the work. In the end, this collective has helped to shape the outlook of the work. Of paramount practical aid in getting this work to completion have been the many benefactors that have sponsored our endeavour. We would especially like to thank the Centre for the Study of Educational Leadership and Policy, located at Simon Fraser University. With an aim of engaging the education community in the production and dissemination of research in order to strengthen policy and practice, the centre has certainly stayed true to its aim and provided unparalleled support in getting this work to press. Alongside this sponsor, we would also like to acknowledge much-appreciated provision from Trent University, the University of Manitoba, and Nipissing University. Their support has been welcomed and valued as we end our journey.

31656_Clausen-black.indd 17

20-06-11 13:19

31656_Clausen-black.indd 18

20-06-11 13:19

the future of action research i n e d u c at i o n

31656_Clausen-black.indd 1

20-06-11 13:19

31656_Clausen-black.indd 2

20-06-11 13:19

Introduction Kurt W. Clausen and Glenda L. Black

It may seem somewhat presumptuous to title a book The Future of Action Research, giving the reader the erroneous impression that we, the editors, have some crystal ball of prophecy. Rather, we envision this book as a national conversation on this approach with an optimistic perspective that there is a future for action research in this country. Certainly, the authors of the following seventeen chapters were approached as a working cross-section of researchers (both scholarly and practical) and asked to provide their hopes and suggestions for the directions in which action research is moving and should move. As such, we believe the voice of these present academics and educators represent the upcoming trends in Canada. By the end of the book, we also provide our position on and predictions of action research’s prospects after taking into consideration all that has been written by our colleagues. Action research has long been a method used in the field of education by teachers and related stakeholders to solve immediate problems, reflect on the situation, and improve their practice. It has promoted the local construction of knowledge, empowering educators to engage in communities of practice. In doing so, this method has also proved to be both an effective research tool while at the same time acting as a meaningful instrument of teacher education and professional development. However, while the action research community across Canada is a vibrant one, to its detriment it has also remained rather scattered. What has led to this unusual situation? In the past, it might be attributed to the vast expanse of territory and relatively small population that Canada contains. However, in recent years with the uses of technology, this is becoming less of an explanation. More likely, it is

31656_Clausen-black.indd 3

20-06-11 13:19

4

Kurt W. Clausen and Glenda L. Black

action research’s long-standing and unwarranted reputation of being “the new kid on the block” within research circles. Rootless, the methodology’s proponents must continually muscle their way onto the stage, only to be periodically swept aside to once again begin the process of proving themselves worthy. This speaks to a real weakness within the action research community as a whole: a lack of historical thinking among its participants. This is most likely due to the fact that the movement is so ambitious about showing itself as “cutting-edge” or “pioneering” that we fail to stop and realize the lengthy history we build upon – certainly as rich as that of any other research methodology. Failure to understand this point may unfortunately lead to a future much like the past – like a fast-acting phoenix, the movement may continually go through the process of growth, decline, death, and rebirth within a generation, gathering little general knowledge along the way. The pathway out of this cycle is, of course, to make clear, seamless links between the past and the future, seeing the present as merely a bridge between these two temporalities. defining the field

Precise definition has always proved to be elusive for action research, both because of the general ways it has been delineated and because of the large number of synonyms used to explain the philosophy behind the “action.” Broadly speaking, there are some quite useful umbrella descriptions to help us understand the term, such as that offered by Reason and Bradbury (2008, 1): “Action research is a family of practices of living inquiry that aims, in a great variety of ways, to link practice and ideas in the service of human flourishing. It is not so much a methodology as an orientation to inquiry that seeks to create participative communities of inquiry in which qualities of engagement, curiosity and question posing are brought to bear on significant practical issues.” Beyond this wide-ranging statement, Valsa Koshy (2010, 1) also offers certain features that do remain fairly constant across this varied “family”: • •

Action research is considered a method for improving practice. The method involves a cycle of action, evaluation, and critical reflection. Then, based on the evidence that has been gathered, changes in practice are implemented.

31656_Clausen-black.indd 4

20-06-11 13:19

Introduction 5 •

• •

•

•

•

It is a participative and collaborative method, undertaken by individuals with a common purpose. It is situation-based and context-specific. It develops reflection based on interpretations made by the participants. Knowledge is created through action and at the point of application. It can involve problem-solving if the solution to the problem leads to the improvement of practice. Findings will emerge as action develops, but these findings are not conclusive or absolute.

From this base, however, a great deal of fragmentation may be seen among scholarship in this area. Many of these differences depend on where the researcher sits historically and which paradigmatic lens is being used. Perhaps it is best to follow the advice set out by Reason and Bradbury (2008) and rather than landing on one solid definition, acknowledge that different aims may branch out from the same root – the desire to generate knowledge to improve conditions and practices in specific contexts of human interaction (Whitelaw et al. 2003). Within the pages of this book, three thick branches of this taproot may be found, manifested in greater or lesser degrees, within the chapter authors’ philosophies: P o s i t i v i s t a p p roac h to ac t i o n r e s e a rc h (or “classical action research”): Gaining popularity between the 1920s and 1950s, this approach was advocated by Kurt Lewin, the figure generally attributed with introducing the phrase to popular vernacular. Using “the action research method,” he portrayed the now-familiar spiral of steps made up of “planning,” “action,” and “fact finding” (Lewin 1946, 205). However, unlike most modern interpretations of action research, Lewin described it as a form of inquiry that would enable “the significantly established laws of social life to be tried and tested in practice” (Lewin 1952, 564). Thus, rather than emerging from context-specific circumstances alone, this initial construction of the term was based on an impulse to wed abstract social science research to practical application. By the 1950s, after the death of Lewin and the failure of his disciples to meet the rigid methodological requirements of positivism, this approach quickly became marginalized (Carr 2006, 423; Sanford 1970). Since that time, variations on this approach

31656_Clausen-black.indd 5

20-06-11 13:19

6

Kurt W. Clausen and Glenda L. Black

have been used by a number of organizational theorists, most specifically Chris Argyris, whose “Action Science” examines how human beings design their actions to achieve consequences governed by a set of environmental variables (see Argyris, Putnam, and McLain 1985). I n t e r p r e t i v e ac t i o n r e s e a rc h (or “contemporary action research”): Gaining popularity since the 1970s, this approach came about under the conviction that conventional educational research had become increasingly irrelevant for teachers in the field (Kemmis 1988). Reformulating the classical method, Lawrence Stenhouse (1975) saw the importance of the role that teachers could perform in testing educational policies and proposals in their own classrooms or in improving “their own tacit theories in action” (Elliott 1991; 1998). To do so, positivist methodologies had to be rejected in favour of more interpretive ones. Specifically, this approach sees knowledge as socially constructed and focuses on specifications of local and organizational factors when conducting the action research. As such, the focus of the research becomes the perspective of the participants, with qualitative case studies coming to the forefront (Wallace 1987). Rather than seeing a changed policy or theory, as with the Lewin method, “the objects of educational action research are educational practices … Practice as it is understood by action researchers is informed committed action” (Kemmis 1988, 44–5). From the beginning, this approach has been seen by many proponents as much more than an individual or partnership endeavour. First proposed by John Heron, a cooperative action research approach emphasizes the involvement of all active participants as co-researchers. While Heron (later joined by Peter Reason) follows a traditional cyclical methodology first patterned by Lewin, he argues that it is the different types of knowledge generation that separates the approach. These different knowledges include: propositional (“knowing in conceptual terms that something is the case”), practical (“knowing how to do something, demonstrated in a skill or competence”), experiential (“through direct encounter, face-to-face meeting”), and presentational (“clothing our experiential knowing of the world in the metaphors of aesthetic creation, in expressive spatiotemporal forms of imagery”) (Heron and Reason 1997, 280–1). These final knowledges have become the central topics around Whitehead and McNiff’s Action Research: Living Theory (2006).

31656_Clausen-black.indd 6

20-06-11 13:19

Introduction 7

Critical action research: This approach has recently emerged as a third variant of action research, usually under the moniker participatory action research (par). Building on the critical pedagogy put forward by Paulo Freire (2017) as a means for intervening and changing oppressive group dynamics found in communities, its principal promoter was the Colombian sociologist Orlando Fals Borda (1991). Using methods not dissimilar from the other two approaches, it nevertheless differs in its aim. It is not ultimately concerned with the scientism of the first approach, nor with refined practice or technique for its own sake found in the second. Instead, pa r practitioners endeavour to achieve the overarching aims of empowerment, democracy, and freedom from oppression, superseding other more specific goals of any project that may have initiated the study (Chevalier and Buckles 2013). t h e c r e at i o n o f t h e b o o k

As an instrument of knowledge dissemination, this book has the goal of bringing together leading voices from the various action research communities to increase awareness and exchange information and perspectives. It certainly has emerged out of a nexus of community relations. The germ of this project began more than twenty years previously with the founding of a small grassroots journal entitled the Ontario Action Researcher. Its first, modest issue comprised papers that had been delivered at a themed conference of the now-defunct Ontario Educational Research Council (o e rc ), with peer reviews being made by conference members. From small acorns grow mighty oaks: within the next decade, readership steadily grew as submissions came in from outside the province. Rather than being a blog-like forum, it slowly evolved into a peer-reviewed journal running articles concerning projects and new conceptualizations of action research. Shortly after its tenth anniversary, the name was changed to the Canadian Journal of Action Research (c ja r ). Today, it is read by subscribers and curious web-browsers from around the world; contemporary issues are discussed by our country-wide representatives on the editorial board and larger trends by our International Advisory Panel of experts. The journal continued to be concerned with the interplay of voices emerging from group discussion and open forum – such was the

31656_Clausen-black.indd 7

20-06-11 13:19

8

Kurt W. Clausen and Glenda L. Black

mandate from the outset. By this time, the oerc had disbanded, and there were few venues that attracted people from a wider geographical area. So in 2013, members of c ja r approached the Canadian Association of Teacher Education with a proposal to create a special interest group related to our unique concerns. With hearty support from the executive and the president, Mark Hirschkorn, the founding meeting of the Canadian Association of Action Research in Education (c a a r e) in May 2014 established an open forum for debate on the topic once more – this time on a national scale. One of the main ideas brought to this summit was a proposal to create a volume concerning major themes and trends that the Canadian action research community saw emerging from its midst. After initial discussion, the newly founded association greeted this idea with great enthusiasm. General themes were generated through break-out groups, and the topics that emerged included: the links action research has with teacher education processes such as reflective practice and selfstudy; research ethics boards’ attitudes toward action research; the co-option of participatory action research by outside agencies; standards of practice; action research as an aid to diversity; action research as a means of creating meaningful professional development; the creation of a “learning community”; presenting the findings of action research; action research as a tool to help teachers gain an important voice and status as knowledgeable professionals within the educational community; the increasing tendency for academics/researchers to view participatory action research as yet another competing methodology aimed at producing technical fixes for educational problems; personal and social responsibilities about the future of action research (globally and specifically in Canada). Using the themes that surfaced from the break-out group conversations at the pre-conference, a purposive approach was then used for selecting contributors from the action research community. Of course, as has been described, endeavouring to pinpoint the location of this community is exceedingly difficult as one looks at the wide-ranging and eclectic groups of researchers across the country for an equally wide-ranging and eclectic readership. Therefore, we found our contributors in various locations:  1 Action Research Scholarship – we contacted this branch of the academic community largely out of universities in Canada and abroad after reading their work and becoming inspired (such

31656_Clausen-black.indd 8

20-06-11 13:19

Introduction 9

was the case with the inimitable Drs Fels, Lotherington, Gouzouasis, Prest, and Laitsch, for example).  2 University and College-Level Courses – many schools of higher learning now have action research capstone projects or courses that have captured the imagination of those experiencing it firsthand. It has also been an object of delight or derision for those having to complete the exercise. Such was the way we came across a few contributors such as Sarah El Halwany, Majd Zouda, and Chantal Pouliot, who worked with Dr Larry Bencze.  3 The Teacher Federations/Teacher Support Initiatives – most of these organizations now have a professional development arm to their organizations, with courses and training. Alternatively, they award grants and venues to aid teachers in their pursuit of their research. We were happy to welcome Sheena Koops, president of the Stirling McDowell Foundation, to add her thoughts to this approach and how it affected her life. Pam Adams, a leading light in the Alberta Initiative for School Improvement (a i si ) was also gracious enough to discuss her experiences.  4 Associations and Conferences – over the past few years, there has developed an extremely robust international action research community interested in action research scholarship from specific corners of the world. Such groups include the Canadian Association for Action Research in Education (c a a r e ), the Action Research of the Americas (arn a), the Collaborative Action Research Network (carn ), and the Action Learning-Action Research Association (al ara). Each group has representation on each other’s board, and all are kept informed of national scholarship. From caare , we were happy to welcome its president, Manu Sharma, and executive board member Sunny Man Chu Lau. From arn a, we invited participation from Dr Cathy Bruce and Tara Flynn. Of course, no work of this sort would be complete without Dr Quigley’s input – he himself set up two very important action research – related networks in this country.  5 Journal Members – a good many of the contributors were also active members of action research journals (cjar most prevalent). Many were reviewers or editorial board members – all had written extensively for journals of this sort over the

31656_Clausen-black.indd 9

20-06-11 13:19

10

Kurt W. Clausen and Glenda L. Black

years and were now happy to contribute (we especially note Drs Robinson, Morin, Jordan, Eyre, and Goodnough, who have been supporters of the action research community for years).  6 Educators – action research has become an increasingly popular approach for teachers (individually or as a “learning community”) as they attempt to reach answers in the field. As well, they are certainly becoming more proficient, and they are also becoming more vocal – we were only too happy to oblige this tendency and welcomed Zoe Donoahue to contribute. From a large list of academicians, researchers, authors, submitters to the Canadian Journal of Action Research, readers and reviewers, association members, and educators, therefore, an X-Y chart was generated and used to select contributors based on: a) their expertise in a specific area of action research outlined at the conference and the insight they might generate; b) their geographic location within the country; c) their stage of career in the education community. As a means of creating a forum to let each voice be heard unhindered by others around them, this book is divided into four separate parts, each of which focuses on an aspect of action research that emerged naturally from the contributors’ distinctive chapters (Part A: The Historical Roots of Action Research in Canada; Part B: The Individual and Action; Part C: Small and Large Group Reporting/Collaborations; and Part D: Participatory Action Research). The book, consequently, endeavoured to create a Canada-wide perspective by combining the wide-ranging stories contributors shared as they authentically tried to deal with this methodology in various ways and examined the different facets of this theme from their points of view. It is hoped that in doing so, these seventeen chapters may provide a beginning to a national conversation on the past, present, and future of action research in Canada.

references

Argyris, Chris, Robert Putnam, and Diana McLain Smith. 1985. Action Science: Concepts, Methods, and Skills for Research and Intervention. San Francisco, ca: Jossey-Bass. Carr, Wilfred. 2006. “Philosophy, Methodology and Action Research.” Journal of Philosophy of Education 40(4), 421–35.

31656_Clausen-black.indd 10

20-06-11 13:19

Introduction 11

Chevalier, Jacques M., and Daniel J. Buckles. 2013. Participatory Action Research: Theory and Methods for Engaged Inquiry. Abingdon, UK: Routledge. Elliott, John. 1991. Action Research for Educational Change. Buckingham, UK: Open University Press. – 1998. The Curriculum Experiment: Meeting the Challenge of Social Change. Buckingham, UK: Open University Press. Fals Borda, Orlando. 1991. “Some Basic Ingredients.” In Action and Knowledge: Breaking the Monopoly with Participatory Action Research, edited by Orlando Fals Borda and Muhammad Anisur Rahman. New York, n y: The Apex Press. Freire, Paulo. 2017. Pedagogy of the Oppressed. London, UK: Penguin Books. Heron, John, and Peter Reason. 1997. “A Participatory Inquiry Paradigm.” Qualitative Inquiry 3(3), 274–94. Kemmis, Stephen. 1988. “Action Research.” In Educational Research, Methodology and Measurement: An International Handbook, edited by J.P. Keeves. Oxford, UK: Pergamon Press. Koshy, Valsa. 2009. Action Research for Improving Educational Practice: A Step-by-Step Guide. London, UK: Sage. Lewin, Kurt. 1946. “Action Research and Minority Problems.” Journal of Social Issues 2(4), 34–46. – 1952. “Group Decision and Social Change.” In Readings in Social Psychology edited by Guy E. Swanson, Theodore M. Newcomb, and Eugene L. Hartley. New York, n y: Holt. Reason, Peter, and Hillary Bradbury. 2008. The sage Handbook of Action Research: Participative Inquiry and Practice (2nd ed.). London, UK: Sage. Sanford, Nevitt. 1970. “Whatever Happened to Action Research?” Journal of Social Issues 26(4), 3–23. Stenhouse, Lawrence. 1975. An Introduction to Curriculum Research and Development. London, UK: Heinemann. Wallace, Mike. 1987. “A Historical Review of Action Research: Some Implications for the Education of Teachers in Their Management Role.” Journal of Education for Teaching 13(2), 97–115. Whitehead, Jack, and Jean McNiff. 2006. Action Research: Living Theory. London, UK: Sage. Whitelaw, Sandy, Alan Beattie, Ruth Balogh, and Jonathan Watson. 2003. A Review of the Nature of Action Research. Cardiff, UK: Welsh Assembly Government.

31656_Clausen-black.indd 11

20-06-11 13:19

31656_Clausen-black.indd 12

20-06-11 13:19

part a

The Historical Roots of Action Research in Canada As illustrated in the following chapters, Canada’s role in the history of action research has been a substantial one, dictated in many respects by our geographical isolation and decentralization of the school system. While provincial departments of education have traditionally promoted the efficient transmission of a uniform body of knowledge generated from a central authority, teachers have also, by necessity, been left unsupervised in remote, one-room schools for very long periods of time. Left to their own devices, they would surely have taken on the role of action researcher of sorts, pinpointing and endeavouring to solve the multitude of issues that came their way. This history has, however, been largely hidden from view in most official accounts. It was only by the turn of the twentieth century that classroom experimentation and more “progressive” methods were being ­promoted by various provincial teachers’ federations and the ­wider-based Canadian Education Association. Without naming the technique, the Putman-Weir Report (1925) of British Columbia became the first government document to recommend practitionerresearcher initiatives: active discussions between teacher and pupil, less reliance on transient teachers who did not know or study their surroundings, and better-trained teachers who could consider and solve problems in situ. The report condemned those teachers who, by not keeping up their own education, fell “into the rut of old fogeyism, routine and drudgery” (26).

31656_Clausen-black.indd 13

20-06-11 13:19

14

Part A

By the 1930s, Canadian curriculum documents routinely encouraged teachers to continue their own professional development and make classroom decisions based on observations of their locality, as a solitary researcher or within peer groups. By the time Kurt Lewin was introducing the world of postwar industrial relations to the methodology of action research, many Canadian teachers belonged to community-level curriculum committees, acknowledging the importance of locality and the expertise that lay within each teacher to research their own classroom for best learning. After a period of retrenchment in the 1950s, when educators were once again admonished to efficiently meet the ideal needs of the tidal wave of students during the baby boom, by the late 1960s the actual term “action research” was introduced into the educational vocabulary. Since then, generations of teachers, ministries, and school boards have used this methodology – frequently in short bursts: rising and falling in intensity, year by year, it was considered a creed by some and a fad by others (see Clausen 2016). So important was this methodology in the 1970s that the distinguished ­professor E.A. (Ted) Holdaway (1976) began the first issue of the Canadian Journal of Education by criticizing the state of educational research in Canada as “haphazard.” In the end, he recommended that research, rather than being an elite activity, should be funded at the school district level. These monies, he proposed, should be used by teachers to conduct action research projects. Reaching a peak in the early 1990s, provincial, international, and grassroots movements flourished to improve the local situation for classrooms and education in general. Funding was made available, and a sense of innate teacher-wisdom prevailed as the move was being made to the practitioner-researcher paradigm. Unfortunately, a backlash soon occurred once again leading up to the millennium that halted most progress in this area of Canadian public education. With a mandate for fiscal restraint, many provincial governments began promoting a program to increase centralization, cut spending, streamline departments and local authority, and re-focus education on fixed bodies of knowledge through standardized curricula. For the past generation, therefore, the terrain has, at times, proved somewhat inhospitable for action research to grow (Clausen 2016). It has only been in the past decade that, because of the increased use of electronic communication networks, a revival of action research has once again begun.

31656_Clausen-black.indd 14

20-06-11 13:19



The Historical Roots of Action Research in Canada 15

The following chapters give credence to the lengthy and more recent history of action research connections across the country. Many of them are tied by some other discipline, using action research as a means to an end – this is seen in Allan Quigley’s examination of adult literacy networks that run from the Maritimes to the Prairies and beyond or in Dan Robinson’s account of the physical education movement in Canada. Heather Lotherington’s and Francine Morin’s chapters focus on collaborative action research, showing the deep connections that run within each province.

references

Clausen, Kurt. 2016. “Action Research in the Canadian Context.” In International Handbook of Action Research, edited by Lonnie Rowell, Catherine D. Bruce, Joseph M. Shosh, and Margaret Reil. Basingstoke, UK: Palgrave MacMillan. Holdaway, Edward A. 1976. “The Organization of Educational Research: Some European Issues Relevant to Canada.” Canadian Journal of Education 1(1), 5–17. Putman, J. Harold, and George M. Weir. 1925. Survey of the School System. Victoria, bc: C.F. Banfield.

31656_Clausen-black.indd 15

20-06-11 13:19

1 The Uncertain World of Adult Literacy Reflections on Twenty-Five Years of Building Action Research Networks in North America B. Allan Quigley Every year we are reminded that 8 September is International Literacy Day. We might see an announcement in a newspaper. A local political figure might give a speech on why parents should read to their children. While it is wonderful that such celebrations occur every year, and one hopes today’s youth will not face the same literacy challenges that so many adults have in the past, for adult literacy educators 8 September serves as a frustrating annual reminder that much was promised but little has been accomplished for the estimated 9,945,000 adults living with low literacy skills in Canada today (C ME C 2012). International Literacy Day grew of the First World Conference of Ministers of Education held in Iran on 8 September 1965 to “discuss adult illiteracy” (Thomas 2001, xix). u n e s c o subsequently proclaimed 8 September as International Literacy Day to “actively mobilize the international community and to promote literacy as an instrument to empower individuals, communities and societies” (u n e s c o 2016). Sadly, today’s various International Literacy Day announcements rarely mention adult literacy. “Mobilizing the community” for the millions of adults affected by low literacy is rarely seen in today’s media. This is unfortunate. The most recent o e c d and Statistics Canada study on adult literacy (2012) estimated that the number of adults between ages sixteen and sixty-five living below the level required for full participation in today’s society rose from an

31656_Clausen-black.indd 16

20-06-11 13:19



The Uncertain World of Adult Literacy 17

estimated 8,000,000 in 2005 (Statistics Canada 2005) to an unprecedented 9,945,000 in 2012. Approximately 20 per cent of the surveyed adults were found to be in the very lowest skill level (level one) and another approximately 23 per cent were living with severe literacy challenges at level 2. An estimated 42 per cent of Canada’s adult population is affected by lower literacy. Once an issue of huge concern to Canadians, it now seems the “literacy crisis” has virtually disappeared from public discourse. Based on the widely accepted oecd/Statistics Canada definition of literacy as: “The ability to understand and employ printed information in daily activities, at home, at work and in the community – to achieve one’s goals, and to develop one’s knowledge and potential” (2000, x), the discouraging oecd/Statistics Canada conclusion that despite a decade of work to “eradicate” or at least substantially impact low literacy rates, “literacy scores showed very little variation between 1994 and 2003” (cmec 2012, 35). The field of adult literacy education was ostensibly making “no progress.” How did we get to this point? This chapter gives an overview of the uncertain world of adult literacy, beginning with mention of u n e s c o ’s Experimental World Literacy Project in the halcyon days of literacy in the 1980s. It then moves to what will be called the “roller coaster” of political and public interest in adult literacy in Canada. The discussion then turns to a case study of an action research model I have been involved with across the US and Canada for some twenty-five years. The chapter concludes with a discussion of the potential of action research for the future of adult literacy in our uncertain world. purpose and context

I have worked in the field of adult literacy for almost fifty years. First as a literacy/basic education instructor in northern Saskatchewan and Alberta colleges, then as a civil servant responsible for literacy adult basic education (a b e ) and English as an additional language (e al ) policy across Saskatchewan, and, since 1987, as an academic researching adult literacy – first with Penn State University, then with St Francis Xavier University in Nova Scotia until 2008 when I “retired.” Throughout my career, I have searched for a way to help build our field of adult literacy education, but it always seemed that the capricious politics and funding reversals that essentially govern adult literacy have continually disempowered the field. Hopes have been raised

31656_Clausen-black.indd 17

20-06-11 13:19

18

B. Allan Quigley

for adult literacy educators, then have fallen time over time on the roller coaster ride of adult literacy politics. from the best of times to the worst of times

In 1961, un Secretary General U Thant “asked unesco for a report on world illiteracy and recommendations for action” (Gillette 1987, 199–200). What followed was the Experimental World Literacy Program (ewlp), a Herculean task that envisioned “teaching 330 million people, at an approximate total cost of two billion dollars spread over a decade” (Gillette 1987, 200). And this was envisaged as just the beginning. The e wl p would “pave the way” for a world literacy campaign that would significantly reduce, even eradicate, illiteracy worldwide. The vision was truly exciting. Initially, more than a million people joined e w l p literacy courses through the late 1960s and the 1970s in the targeted pilot nations of Sudan, Madagascar, Ecuador, Iran, Algeria, Ethiopia, Mali, and Tanzania. However, a lack of resources, issues of coordination, and a simplistic “input vs output” conceptualization of how to address literacy issues all led the une sc o Secretariat to conclude: “functional literacy work cannot be designed from outside … but presupposes active participation on the part of those concerned at all stages of preparation and implementation” (cited in Gillette 1987, 210). Media, especially in the US, gave scathing reviews of the e w l p. The International Herald Tribune called it a “dismal failure” (cited in Gillette 1987, 198). Nevertheless, ambitious literacy campaigns continued to be launched – often “from the outside” – around the world throughout the latter half of the twentieth century, with varying degrees of success (Arnove and Graff 1987). Interestingly, countries such as Cuba, Vietnam, and Tanzania (Arnove and Graff 1987) achieved exceptionally high levels of literacy. Literacy for adults and youth was promoted as a component of revolutionary patriotism. On the other hand, Scandinavian countries such as Sweden and Norway have consistently led industrialized nations in adult literacy – not through episodic campaigns but by locating adult literacy in public policy and locally based discourse through many generations (Veeman, Ward, and Walker 2006). All of these successful examples point to the need for consistent support and attention to input if high literacy rates are to be achieved.

31656_Clausen-black.indd 18

20-06-11 13:19



The Uncertain World of Adult Literacy 19

By contrast, the United States has had perhaps the most dramatic history of literacy “crusades” and campaigns, often promising to “cure,” “fight,” and “abolish” the “scourge of illiteracy” (Quigley 1997; 2013). The first Literacy Crusade in the US was launched by the New York Times in 1924 (Cook 1977). It was followed in 1929 by the first US government–sponsored Literacy Crusade whereby President Hoover declared that “five million adults [will have] the opportunity to read and write in the course of two or three months” (Cook 1977, 31). “This impossible goal would occur with a remarkably low budget of only $52,001.99” (Cook 1977, 1). As noted earlier, one of the lessons from the Experimental World Literacy Program still relevant today was, as unesco explained: “literacy work cannot be designed from outside … but presupposes active participation on the part of those concerned at all stages of preparation and implementation” (cited in Gillette, 210). Here was a vital lesson that has yet to be learned in our own country (Quigley 2017). c a n a d a ’ s l o n g a d u lt l i t e r a c y roller coaster ride

Even before there was a unified Canada, desultory classes were conducted by volunteer agencies to help adults learn to read and write. According to historian Murray Ross, as early as 1859 “On Monday evenings, classes in reading, spelling and grammar” (1951, 26) were offered at the Kingston ymca. Ross added, “These were, perhaps, among the earliest experiments in adult education in this country” (26). Turning to what may be the most romanticized chapter in our story is the Canadian Reading Camp Movement, which began in 1899 and later became Frontier College (Morrison 1989). Based on the social gospel vision of its founder, Alfred Fitzpatrick, young university students, called “labourer-teachers,” were recruited to teach reading and writing to, mainly, immigrants for purposes of citizenship education. The young recruits worked with lumberjacks in northern Ontario lumber camps and, later, shoulder-to-shoulder with workers building Canada’s railways. After a day of hard work, the exhausted but dedicated labourer-teachers helped their co-workers learn to read and write in reading tents, boxcars, even under the shelter of trees (Morrison 1989). Adult literacy education spread across Canada in the nineteenth and early twentieth century thanks, in large part, to the commitment

31656_Clausen-black.indd 19

20-06-11 13:19

20

B. Allan Quigley

of volunteers and altruistic organizations such as the Mechanics Institutes and the y mc a , but the real halcyon days of adult literacy education, later to be termed “adult basic education” (a b e ), were during the late 1960s – the years I entered the field. This was the time of the US War on Poverty and the UN emphasis on literacy, and, in this same time frame, the Canadian federal government stepped forward with the 1960 Technical and Vocational Training Assistance Act (Thomas 2001). This act committed $1.5 billion over a five-year period intended to help provinces and territories build technical and vocational training facilities for adult learners. This step was followed by a second act that effectively launched literacy and abe as we know it today. The political roller coaster began to climb. Canada was entering what was its “best of times” for adult literacy. t h e b e s t o f t i m e s f o r a d u lt l i t e r a c y

The 1960s federal thrust to build facilities and launch an era of adult vocational training soon led to the discovery that “a number of Canadian adults were not educated enough for retraining” (Shohet 2002, 2). This realization “put the need for adult basic education out in the open for the first time” (Shohet, 2). The roller coaster of public and political interest began to climb. In 1967, Canada’s centennial year, the federal government passed the Adult Occupational Training Act to add basic academic skills to the original policy thrust. Here was an early example of Canada’s government cooperating to finesse the British North America Act, which spells out that education is a provincial, not a federal, responsibility. The federal justification for this centralized legislation was that abe would be a lead into work preparation, all the while “focusing on unemployed and underemployed workers and on short-term retraining” (Shohet, 2). While the roller coaster of public interest continued to climb, in 1976 Audrey Thomas published the first national study on adult literacy in our history (Thomas 1976). The nation was shocked. Even outraged. Headlines across Canada reported her findings: of the adult population fifteen and older, a full 37.2 per cent had less than a Grade 9 education (Thomas 1976). Nevertheless, despite the clear need, the literacy roller coaster began to descend. In 1976, a Senate Finance Committee deemed abe a “soft spot” in federal funding (Quigley 2013). The federal government retrenched on social policies. The field of adult literacy education found itself in

31656_Clausen-black.indd 20

20-06-11 13:19



The Uncertain World of Adult Literacy 21

the 1980s faced with the reality that support for the most undereducated adults in Canada had almost ceased to exist (Quigley 2017). With this reversal, provinces and territories were forced to “backfill” at least some of the funding for literacy and abe. Much of this support became more focused on informal volunteer literacy organizations. In 1981, for example, the international Laubach Literacy organization was established to “coordinate and represent the Laubach Reading Councils” that had grown up across Canada (Shohet 2002, 4). Then, in 1987, the media carried yet another round of shocking headlines. The Southam newspaper chain released its study: Broken Words: Why Five Million Canadians Are Illiterate. It reported that, “illiteracy still affects 22 percent of Canadian-born adults, more than one in five” (Calamai 1987, 7). Some five million adults still could not “use printed and written information to function in society” (Calamai 1987, 7). The report added: “less than two percent of the 4.5 million functional illiterates are now enrolled in the nation’s inadequate literacy programs” (Calamai, 9). The roller coaster levelled off for a short time, then rose sharply once again … for a few more years. On 1 October 1986, in the Speech from the Throne, the federal government pledged to “work with the provinces, the private sector and the voluntary groups to develop resources to ensure that Canadians have access to the literacy skills that are the prerequisite for participation in our advanced economy” (cited in Shohet 2002, 5). The renewed purpose was to provide the resources to ensure Canadians’ participation in our advanced economy (Quigley 2013) but with an even sharper employment focus. The Canadian Business Task Force on Literacy reinforced this approach, reporting that “the annual cost to business of illiteracy in the workforce [was an estimated] $4 billion and the cost to society [was] $10 billion” (Shohet 2002, 5). The roller coaster was climbing once again. And with increasing speed. In 1989, the federal Secretary of State committed $1 million to create the National Literacy Secretariat (n l s ) with a mandate to support literacy across Canada. The federal government followed with yet another $110 million for literacy over five years. As Thomas put it: “For many it seemed the years of struggle were over” (Thomas 2001, xxiii). International Literacy Year arrived amid high hopes. It was 1990, and “Media attention was at an all-time high” (Thomas 2001, xxiii). New partners, new alliances, new coalitions appeared. Everything from, “travelling musicals” to “T-shirts and mugs” in the marketplace

31656_Clausen-black.indd 21

20-06-11 13:19

22

B. Allan Quigley

(Thomas, xxiii) made this the “best of times” for adult literacy. The n ls went on to fund more than 4,500 projects, including practicebased action research. But then came the decline. the

“worst

o f t i m e s ” f o r a d u lt l i t e r a c y

After a decade of roller coaster ascent, the mid-1990s saw the federal government change its mind on adult literacy once again (Shohet 2002). The issues of low literacy were obviously not going to be so easily “fixed.” Federal, then provincial/territorial support, began to fall. The descent has not yet ended. Ironically, the past decade has seen the publication of the most authoritative, most comprehensive studies in Canada’s history. Reports by the Council of Ministers of Education Canada (2012), Statistics Canada (2000), Statistics Canada in cooperation with the o e c d (2000), and compelling reports from the Conference Board of Canada found that “a 2 percent increase in wages and earnings from improvements in national literacy would provide approximately a 1.8 percent increase in revenue” (Bloom et al. 1997). Yet the fall in governmental support has continued. Why? One reason was that the federal government was looking to the 2015 election and made it clear they were determined to balance the federal budget. By the time of the federal election of 2015, the National Literacy Secretariat had been closed. Adult Basic Education was shifted from the Secretary of State’s Office to Human Resources and Skills Development Canada (hrsc d), which led to a new, far more rigid employment and human resources focus. Indeed, the hrsdc changed the literacy lexicon by replacing such worrisome terms as “literacy” and “adult basic education” to more “positive” labels such as “essential skills” and “foundational skills.” In that renaming phase, the criteria for what used to be literacy and abe were narrowed to the point where almost nothing seemed to qualify for federal funding. This meant that provincial volunteer literacy coalition offices that had been established decades earlier to coordinate and support communitybased literacy no longer saw federal support. The Newfoundland and Labrador provincial coordination office closed during 2016 – this was the province with the highest rates of low literacy in Canada at the time. In the fall of 2016, New Brunswick’s literacy coalition office had but one staff member to coordinate and support literacy programs for the entire province. The Saskatchewan

31656_Clausen-black.indd 22

20-06-11 13:19



The Uncertain World of Adult Literacy 23

Literacy Network office was reduced to part-time staffing. Meanwhile, a b e programs at colleges and polytechnics in provinces such as bc were forced to institute tuition fees for adult literacy and basic education classes. Practitioners in bc told me at the time that many literacy students simply could not afford to attend classes. The province ultimately reversed this decision. Meanwhile, at the national level the world-class National Adult Literacy Database (nald) that had been established in the 1980s to house Canada’s digital research on literacy was closed. The nation’s only adult literacy journal, Literacies, was discontinued. The Quebecbased Centre for Literacy, which had hosted international symposia on adult literacy research for years, was forced to close. It was not that literacy programs from coast to coast to coast did not protest the funding cuts: they did – but to no avail. Demoralized, many of Canada’s literacy practitioners simply got off the roller coaster and left the field. Now, well into the twenty-first century and the “knowledge economy,” we have an estimated 9,945,000 adults living below the requisite skill levels needed for full participation in society (oecd and Statistics Canada, 2000). This is the highest number in recorded history. However, like “old news,” the crisis in adult literacy rarely appears in today’s media and has largely disappeared from public discourse. As of the time of writing, Canada is at the nadir of political and public support for adult literacy in some fifty years. one man’s journey and the role of action research

Despite today’s challenges, adult literacy education is a field of enduring hope (Quigley 2017). Some of the initiatives from recent years have continued to survive. One of these is an adult literacy action research project in Saskatchewan that I have been a part of for some fifteen years. While it is not the intent of this chapter to suggest that this singular action research movement could somehow address all of the complex socio/economic/cultural issues that the field has inherited from our history (issues that have been discussed elsewhere; e.g., Quigley 2017), the success of the Saskatchewan Action Research Network (www.sarn.ca) and the story leading up to it can bring fresh hope for the creation of evidence-based knowledge, for greater practitioner-learner empowerment, and, in my view, the possibility for attaining a stronger voice in the politics of our field.

31656_Clausen-black.indd 23

20-06-11 13:19

24

B. Allan Quigley

t h e p e n n s y lva n i a y e a r s

My search for a better way forward began when I moved to the United States from Saskatchewan in the late 1980s to take a faculty position at Penn State University. My earlier years as a practitioner with colleges and government in both Saskatchewan and Alberta continually reminded me of the archetypal lessons of u n e s c o ’s Experimental World Literacy Program, as seen earlier, whereby u n e s co reported that “literacy work cannot be designed from outside” (cited in Gillette 1987, 210). I found a body of research on action research and participatory action research in the public school literature and a smaller body of literature on participatory research and participatory action research in the adult education literature (e.g., Hall 1984; Obilade 2005). However, there was virtually no research on qualitative approaches to practitioner-based research that applied specifically to the subfield of adult literacy and basic education. Believing in building from “the inside,” I experimented with Kemmis and McTaggart’s (1988) action research planning model at adult education conferences and was ultimately able to establish the Pennsylvania Action Research Network (paarn) with a group of five of my graduate students. Our approach was to focus on the actual classroom and administrative problems practitioners faced in their practice and try to help them work through these issues with action research, all the while widely sharing the results of their efforts. The initiative was greeted with high interest throughout the field of practice in Pennsylvania. Through the early 1990s, I conducted presentations and workshops while continually modifying and revising workshop approaches. They were conducted at adult education conferences, through invitations from literacy programs, and through invitations from state governments such as Kansas, Kentucky, Delaware, and Louisiana. Coming home to Canada in 1997, I was invited to conduct training workshops in British Columbia, Nova Scotia, Prince Edward Island, and Saskatchewan. Throughout, I continually refined and adapted the model used. Following is a brief overview of the steps I took with colleagues leading to the latest iteration of what became “the Saskatchewan model.” This twenty-five-year initiative started in Pennsylvania and evolved to Saskatchewan. The strengths and weaknesses of each are discussed in the hope that others might want to adopt, adapt, or improve on what was learned.

31656_Clausen-black.indd 24

20-06-11 13:19



The Uncertain World of Adult Literacy 25

During the 1980s at Penn State University, I developed a one-credit class on Conducting Action Research and, happily, was supported by the university’s Continuing Education Department to offer this class at various locations across the state. I began by contacting regional literacy coalitions, mainly in western Pennsylvania where I was located. I discussed how action research might help with such pervasive issues as student dropout, poor attendance, learner recruitment, learner lateness, and fostering better involvement of the local community in adult literacy. I explained that I hoped we might build a shared repository of “best practices” in the form of project reports and dialogue across the state with an action research network of some kind so that literacy practitioners could share their findings and collaborate on projects. But would tutors and basic education teachers want to become researchers? • Over the course of the next six years, with a team of four graduate students, I was invited by literacy programs around the state to conduct training workshops in action research. To minimize travel, the workshops began with a two-hour audio conference session on a Saturday morning. Well before the Internet, participants joined a conference call based out of their local literacy office. They had already received a packet of reading in advance of the call, and I would end the morning’s conference session by asking each to think of a practical problem they were experiencing in their tutoring or teaching and bring it to the group meeting to be held the following weekend in their local area.   On the following Friday evening, I met the group – of typically ten or more – at a centrally located facility such as the regional adult learning centre, a public library, or, on a few occasions, in a hotel boardroom. We began by reviewing the theoretical reading materials as sent, then refocused on their own worksite issues. On Saturday morning, those issues were further explored and clarified in small groups. They were frequently scaled back to “doable,” step-by-step action research projects using a problemposing/problem-solving action research approach (as discussed below). Contact information was exchanged, and all were encouraged to further collaborate by phone or email (if they had that new technology at that time). Moreover, follow-up progress meetings were planned. They would be conducted by team members and/or by myself. •

31656_Clausen-black.indd 25

20-06-11 13:19

26

B. Allan Quigley

  To conclude the Saturday session, by about 3:00 pm we were ready for our “walkabout.” A spokesperson from each group presented their action research plan(s) using a flip chart. Each received critical feedback from the entire group. By 4:30, every participant had left with an action plan for that project and a contact list of “research friends” to stay in touch with.   Examples of project plans included topics such as: “If I tutor small groups of 3–4 rather than tutor one-on-one, will retention improve by at least 15% by the end of three months?” “If I have learners help me complete the required weekly student attendance form every Friday, will attendance improve by at least 20%?” Another was “Will using more visuals in my teaching materials raise completion levels by 15% over the next teaching term in my literacy class?” And another, “Will reducing the wait list improve retention by 10% next term?” Looking more closely, each discussion group shaped their project by creating: •

•

• •

•

•

•

•

A “problem statement” that narrowed the original issue for a research cycle, noting that other cycles might follow as the project advanced An “intervention” or research strategy that the group agreed was promising A project time line to conclude each project cycle A “benchmark” to measure and compare outcomes against a ­pre-research time period or event A “criteria for success” statement, such as: “A successful outcome will be a 15% increase in learner retention by the end of May” A list of “My research friends” who would assist through email, telephone, or local meetings during the project and at the follow-up meetings. A mandatory plan to obtain written/oral permission to conduct the study from both their administration and learners A potential next-cycle-plan if a second or third cycle was needed

This initial “Pennsylvania phase” provided the blueprint for the future. We received some five years of funding from the Pennsylvania State Department of Education, which enabled us to travel to training sites and follow-up meetings, which were held weekly, monthly, or bi-monthly, depending on the group (Quigley and Kuhne 1997).

31656_Clausen-black.indd 26

20-06-11 13:19



The Uncertain World of Adult Literacy 27

Most of the participant groups completed their projects. Some individuals launched a different project using the same action research problem-posing/problem-solving approach. When they did complete a project and submitted a report, they received a $300 honorarium. We used a report template for consistency and, in turn, each report was printed and circulated throughout the state in a monograph form by the State Office of Adult Education. These monographs were announced in our monthly paarn newsletter and were all added later to a state website established in the late 1980s. Finally, we hosted a social gathering of action researchers and guests at the annual adult education state conference (Quigley and Kuhne 1997). Those early years resulted in more than 100 project reports. Although the model has been adapted since, the action research concept continues in various forms in Pennsylvania literacy practice some twenty years later (Quigley and Kuhne 1997). Probably its greatest strength was having a training team for follow-up meetings to keep the momentum going. The importance of group support cannot be overemphasized. Perhaps the most dramatic example of this was when I was invited to conduct a workshop in New Orleans. About a month after the workshop, Hurricane Katrina struck. While some of the participants were forced to leave the city, those who remained regrouped and continued to meet on a weekly basis in order to finish their projects. Their dedication helped to address a number of the adult literacy issues that followed the devastation caused by Katrina. b u i l d i n g a c t i o n r e s e a r c h at h o m e i n c a n a d a

Returning to Canada in 1997, I found interest in literacy practitioner research was at least as high as in the US. Canada’s National Literacy Secretariat, mentioned earlier, was supporting practitioner research across all provinces and territories. In 1996, the n l s sponsored a national study into interest levels for practitioner research. It was found that every province and territory was either currently involved in some form of practitioner-based research or was intending to get involved (Horsman and Woodrow 2006). In most cases, the preferred methodology was action research – called Research-in-Practice in that national report (Horsman and Woodward 2006). Interest was high. I was invited to conduct presentations or training workshops in British Columbia, Prince Edward Island, Nova Scotia, and, later, Saskatchewan. We were excited to think that this national movement would become an integral part of literacy practice across

31656_Clausen-black.indd 27

20-06-11 13:19

28

B. Allan Quigley

Canada for years to come. Sadly, as noted earlier, the nls was closed by the federal government in the mid-1990s, and subsequently, action research initiatives in most provinces and territories slowly declined. Nevertheless, one province carried on for what is now fifteen consecutive years, as will now be discussed. While not without comparative weaknesses, in my view the Saskatchewan model gives real hope for research-based practice and greater control over our own destiny into the future. the success of a canadian action research movement

The Saskatchewan Action Research Network (sarn , www.sarn.ca) had thirteen years of provincial support and growth; however, in the spring of 2017 we were informed that sa r n would no longer be funded because of a downturn in the Saskatchewan economy. It was nevertheless agreed by our sa r n Advisory Board that our training team, comprising three committed a b e practitioners, would try to carry on without funding. Following is a snapshot of the phases sarn evolved through, each building on the original Pennsylvania model as seen above. Phase One: The open-invitation model (2003–07) In Saskatchewan, I began building on what I learned with the Pennsylvania experience and revisions since. I was first invited by the Department of Advanced Education and Manpower to conduct an action research training workshop in Regina in 1983. All of the province’s a b e instructors were invited to participate. That promising beginning led to a team of three highly skilled a b e practitioners joining and ultimately leading the project.   The first phase saw an open-invitation training workshop in Saskatoon in 2004. Our provincial grant then covered 100 per cent of participant travel costs and delivery expenses. Besides that advantage, this model reached adult educators from all walks of the field, including librarians, the John Howard Society, First Nations band council members, volunteers from a foodbank, and interested members from the general public.   Unlike in Pennsylvania, we did not begin with distance media to reach participants. Instead, we used a one-and-a-half-day format of face-to-face training. We began with research theory and the

•

31656_Clausen-black.indd 28

20-06-11 13:19



The Uncertain World of Adult Literacy 29

relevance of action research, moved to self-identified issues the following morning, and concluded with groups’ or individuals’ customized action plans. Again, each participant left with an action plan built on the format and steps seen earlier. When projects were completed, the results were added to the sarn website (www.sarn.ca). However, and here was one salient weakness of this “open model,” no honoraria were offered, and no follow-up progress meetings were possible given the size of the grant. • Phase Two: The campus-based model (2007–16). Because providing 100 per cent of participant travel and other expenses was later seen as excessive by our funders, expenses became shared with the host institutions on a fifty-fifty basis. Also, because of scheduling issues on campuses, what was once a day-and-a-half-long workshop was reduced to a one-day format.   During the eight years that followed, our team conducted training on four of the six regional college campuses, three of the four polytechnic campuses, and at both the Saskatchewan Indian Institute of Technologies and the Dumont Technical Institute campuses. Sixty per cent of the adult literacy/ABE practitioners across the entire province’s A B E programs were trained. The number would have been higher if those from volunteer literacy programs, libraries, band councils, and the general public were included. Provincial funding restrictions required us to only serve the postsecondary system; “non-postsecondary” practitioners could no longer be invited.   Nevertheless, a few adult literacy practitioners from colleges that were not able to host a workshop at that time requested assistance. They were supported by their own institution to travel to the host campus and join us for the one-day campus professional development. Ever resourceful, we found that adding technology provided support for volunteer programs and the wider public. • Phase Three: The technology-enhanced model (2014–16) To re-establish some of the lost outreach, sarn added a spring webinar accessible to any adult educator throughout the province or beyond. Each webinar was conducted by an expert guest presenter on a relevant literacy or basic education topic, but we were now mandated by our funder to include employment and the workplace in these webinars, a requirement considered a restriction and possible limitation by the team. In what turned

31656_Clausen-black.indd 29

20-06-11 13:19

30

B. Allan Quigley

out to be our last annual webinar, we reached even further to a new audience of English as an Additional Language (e al ) practitioners with the most participants we had ever had.   All three annual webinars were highly successful, with audiences of fifty to eighty participating. The sub-theme of each was the role action research can play in experimenting with the new ideas and approaches being presented by the expert presenter. A limitation, in our view, was that the webinars were not training workshops per se. Participants were invited to attend an upcoming training workshop in order to try the presenters’ new ideas or work on their own teaching questions with action research, but travel funds were extremely limited at the time.   While the webinars were undoubtedly successful additions to the evolving model, we never had the opportunity to experiment with actual training using distance education.   Sadly, in the spring of 2017 sa r n was informed that it would no longer be funded. Grants had consistently been about $35,000, but the Saskatchewan economy was in decline. Nevertheless, with the encouragement and support of the Saskatchewan Adult Basic Education Association (sabe a) and the dedication of our three-person training team, who volunteered to conduct training at the annual sabe a conference or, if a host campus was able to cover their travel costs, at a regional location, we ended that chapter of the story in 2017 hoping sa r n would continue. • Phase Four: The conference-embedded model (2017–18) In 2018, the sa r n team hosted a mini-training workshop as part of the annual sa b e a conference. Attendance was good despite the fact that the workshop was now only two hours long. It raised awareness of action research and promoted sa r n ’s website information; it provided the basic steps of the action research approach, but participants did not leave with actual plans for a project and there was no real capacity for follow-up. a closing comment

Clearly, each iteration had its strengths and weaknesses. We hope this fifteen-year story provides a case study on our evolving action research delivery models, models that can be adapted, adopted, or improved

31656_Clausen-black.indd 30

20-06-11 13:19



The Uncertain World of Adult Literacy 31

upon in other provinces and jurisdictions. We continue to ride the political roller coaster in Canada but with an ongoing belief that action research can help to build a stronger, more self-reliant field of adult literacy research and practice as we face the challenges of the twentyfirst century.

references

Arnove, Robert, and Harvey Graff. 1987. National Literacy Campaigns. New York, n y: Plenum Press. Bloom, Michael, Marie Burrows, Brenda LaFleur, and Robert Squires. 1997. The Economic Benefits of Improving Literacy Skills in the Workplace. Ottawa, on : Conference Board of Canada. Accessed 26 September 2017 from eri c Database, ED 412 340. Calamai, P. 1987. Broken Words: Why Five Million Canadians are Illiterate. Toronto, on : Southam Newspaper Group. Retrieved from www.nald.ca/fulltext/brokword/cover.htm. c me c (Council of Ministers of Education Canada). 2012. piaac in Canada: Programme for the International Assessment of Adult Competencies. Accessed 25 September 2017 from http://www.piaac.ca. Cook, Wanda D. 1977. Adult Literacy Education in the United States. Newark, de: International Reading Association. Gillette, Arthur. 1987. “The Experimental World Literacy Program.” In National Literacy Campaigns, edited by Robert Arnove and Henry Graff, 197–219. New York, n y: Plenum Press. Hall, Budd. 1984. Participatory Research: Popular Knowledge and Power. Toronto, on : Participatory Research Group. Horsman, Jenny, and Helen Woodrow, eds. 2006. Focused on Practice: A Framework for Adult Literacy Research in Canada. Vancouver, b c : Literacy bc. Kemmis, Stephen, and Robin McTaggart. 1988. The Action Research Planner. Geelong, Australia: Deakin University Press. Morrison, James. 1989. Camps and Classrooms: A Pictorial History of Frontier College. Toronto, on : The Frontier College Press. Obilade, Oluyemisi. 2005. “Participatory Action Research.” In International Encyclopedia of Adult Education, edited by Leona M. English, 461–5. New York, n y: Palgrave Macmillan. o e c d and Statistics Canada. 2000. Literacy in the Information Age. Ottawa, on : Government of Canada Printing.

31656_Clausen-black.indd 31

20-06-11 13:19

32

B. Allan Quigley

Quigley, B. Allan. 1997. Rethinking Literacy Education: The Critical Need for Practice-Based Change. San Francisco, c a : Jossey-Bass. – 2013. “Learning from Landmarks.” In Building on Critical Traditions: Adult Education and Learning in Canada, edited by Tom Nesbit, Susan Brigham, Nancy Taber, and Tara Gibb, 82–92. Toronto, on: Thompson Educational Publishing. – 2017. “Will Anything be Different in the 21st Century? How 107 Million Adults and the Field of Adult Literacy Became so Marginalized.” paace Journal of Lifelong Learning 26, 39–54. Quigley, B. Allan, and Gary Kuhne. 1997. “Creating Practical Knowledge through Action Research.” New Directions for Adult and Continuing Education 73. San Francisco, ca: Jossey-Bass. Ross, Murray. 1951. The Y.M.C.A. in Canada. Toronto, on: Ryerson Press. Shohet, Linda. 2002. “Development of abe/Literacy in Canada: A Chronology.” Literacy Across the Curriculumedia Focus 16(1–4). Accessed 15 September 2016 from http://www.centreforliteracy.qc.ca/ sites/default/files/ABE_Chronol_in _Can.pdf. Statistics Canada. 2000. Literacy in the Information Age: Final Report of the International Adult Literacy Survey. Ottawa, on: Government of Canada Printing. – 2005. International Adult Literacy and Skills Survey. Co-published by Sta­tistics Canada, the US National Center for Education Statistics, and the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. Ottawa, on : Government of Canada Printing. Thomas, Audrey. 1976. Adult Basic Education and Literacy Activities in Canada 1975–1976. Toron­to, on : World Literacy of Canada. – 2001. “How Adult Literacy Became of Age in Canada.” In Adult Literacy Now!, edited by Maurice Taylor. Toronto, on: Culture Concepts. une s c o. “International Literacy Day: Fiftieth Anniversary.” Accessed 6 September 2016 from http://www.unesco.org/new/en/unesco/events/ prizes-and-celebrations/celebrations/international-days/literacy-day. Veeman, Nayda, Angela Ward, and Keith Walker. 2006. Valuing Literacy: Rhetoric or Reality? Calgary, ab: Temeron Books.

31656_Clausen-black.indd 32

20-06-11 13:19

2 Learning to Talk (Dialogically) at School Creating the Discourse Conditions for Successful Collaborative Action Research Heather Lotherington

Schools are hierarchical institutions where discourse has been historically patterned. This realization struck me after I met for the first time with elementary school teachers in Toronto who shared my interest in exploring the concept of multiliteracies for children’s multilingual learning. That is when it dawned on me that teachers and researchers have very different ways of talking, and until we sorted out how to democratically share ideas, we would not be able to do collaborative action research. This chapter narrates the incremental learning shared by a university researcher and a cohort of elementary school teachers to establish a discourse facilitating the multi-­ directional dialogic learning (Bakhtin [1975] 1981) necessary to do truly collaborative action research. d e v e l o p i n g m u lt i l i t e r a c i e s p e d a g o g i e s

In 2002, I began to work with teachers at Joyce Public School (j p s ) in northwestern Toronto to explore the pedagogical uptake of multiliteracies (New London Group 1996): a reconceptualization of literacy that took account of pluralities in practice: linguistic, cultural, and technological. The principal, Cheryl Paige, shared my concern that literacy pedagogy was in serious need of updating for school entrants, the majority of whom spoke a language other than English at home. These children were learning literate communication in global times and with dramatically changing technological media.

31656_Clausen-black.indd 33

20-06-11 13:19

34

Heather Lotherington

Cheryl proposed after-school discussions with teachers to explore how they thought we could mobilize a multiliterate perspective in classroom teaching and learning. These discussions seeded a universityschool collaborative action research project that, a decade later, had generated international attention. At the outset of our after-school discussions, however, I realized that we had to learn to talk together as co-researchers. In 2002, we were nowhere even close. This chapter charts our experience of learning to talk constructively and democratically as a dedicated collaborative action research community bringing together university researchers and elementary teachers in a theorypractice interface to develop multiliteracies at school. i n v e s t i g at i n g m u lt i l i t e r a c i e s at s c h o o l : methodological steps

My interest in multimodal literacies – literacies that incorporate a variety of semiotic resources – began four decades ago when I taught high school in rural Papua New Guinea where it was clear that the insects caught between the yellowing pages of books, kindly donated to our bush school by missionaries, were much more interesting and meaningful than the written matter. The label, multiliteracies,1 came into being twenty years later when the New London Group (1996) published a manifesto urging academic and pedagogical action to transform literacy education in keeping with the runaway train of technological development and in social response to complex cultural flows. My experiences as an English as a second language (e s l ) teacher, then as a teacher educator, a sociolinguistics lecturer and researcher, and, finally, as a professor of multilingual education had introduced me to children, adolescents, and adults learning to decode, access, recode, and inscribe the world using whatever tools, technologies, languages, codes, and semiotic resources they had access to. Unfortunately, it appeared that formal schooling was sticking with culturally normed alphabetic writing in canonical forms in majority languages on paper. Students outside this narrow description of literacy achievement were considered at risk. The idea of multiliteracies (Cope and Kalantzis 2000; New London Group 1996) seemed to me as an educator to be self-evident. I was teaching at Monash University in the late 1990s when the New London Group’s landmark article was published. Australia was home to a number of the founding scholars who had joined together in the

31656_Clausen-black.indd 34

20-06-11 13:19



Learning to Talk (Dialogically) at School 35

call to action to reconceptualize literacy and literacy education concomitant with social change. Locally, I was investigating the pedagogical shapes this reconceptualization might take (Lotherington 2003). When I moved to York University in Toronto in 1999, I sought to continue my research efforts on language and literacy education in multilingual contexts to understand what the fledgling concept of multiliteracies might mean for classroom discourse, literacy education, textual production, and curricular language inclusion. But finding my way into a research methodology that accommodated exploration of and teaching to a moving conceptual target stymied me. Finding a context was not much easier. My introduction to jps and its principal, Cheryl Paige, was by way of an associated international research project surveying schools innovating with what were then thought to be new technologies (Granger et al. 2002). I ran into a participating teacher a year or two later, who kindly invited me back to visit the school. I did and talked with the principal about the teaching and learning of emergent literacy in the linguistically diverse classroom, given the incursion of digital media facilitating novel textual production. This resonated with her mission to take her school – which drew its population from a culturally diverse, economically challenged inner-city area – to the zenith of achievement (see Paige 2017). She was keen on exploring new horizons for technologyenhanced teaching and learning. Our chat would prove to be the beginning of a decade-long research liaison. But neither of us knew this yet. I proposed an ethnographic study in which I would hang around and see where multiliterate practices were being engaged in classroom activities, not having seen any research that tallied existing multiliteracies teaching in school environments. In kindergarten, for example, teachers routinely encourage play with and through a variety of media. This is embodied multimodal communication, but it is seldom valued within a multiliteracies mindset because there is little digital mediation in this play. Unfortunately, the rich multimodal play of kindergarten tends to disappear into seatwork in grade school. To make myself useful, I volunteered my services to the principal and teachers according to their needs. Soon I was helping out in the junior e s l classroom and reading storybooks to kindergartners who lacked English, knowledge of stories, and sadly, for a few, a familiarity with books. It was from this involvement that I began to form the idea for a collaborative action research project to explore and

31656_Clausen-black.indd 35

20-06-11 13:19

36

Heather Lotherington

create new pedagogies for evolving multimodal literacies in the elementary classroom. During the term of my school-helper ethnographic observation, I was becoming an insider to the school. The small interventionist study I proposed as a follow-up wasn’t a methodology so much as acting on a hunch, having noticed that children did not have any cultural hook into the literature they were using to learn how to read. Though I did not realize it at the time, my thinking was in a familial vein to Cummins’s (2006) contemporaneous explorations of identity texts at a different level of schooling. I floated to the principal my idea of leading children to write themselves into a story they were learning to read. She welcomed the notion. After all, children would have to learn the story before embarking on their exploratory rewriting, so they had nothing to lose and everything to gain. We would try out an experiment to have young children rewrite a traditional story inserting their home languages and cultural insights into the text using whatever media the teachers had in mind. My exploration of multiliteracies pedagogies in a super-diverse urban school population was thus launched as a pilot study to rewrite Goldilocks and the Three Bears with a small group of teachers who agreed to meet me after school (Lotherington 2011; Lotherington and Chow 2006). I thought this was an engaging idea and couldn’t wait to work with teachers intellectually. But what I learned in that first meeting was that the theoretical currency of university teaching was manifestly at odds with the entrenched functional communication of public education. As Mary McAteer (2013, 7) explains, “gaining mobility and communication skills are highly situated, contextualised activities, and develop in different ways according to that contextualised need.” ta l k i n g i n s c h o o l

Schools are hierarchical intuitions. Students answer to their teachers; teachers respond to the principal, who is the senior school administrator; and school principals, in their myriad responsibilities, answer ultimately to a political governing body, such as a district school board or ministry of education. And so the chain of authority goes. In schools, outsiders are demarcated: provided with tags to wear that announce their status as visitor. To become an insider to the school, which was essential to collaborative action research, I needed

31656_Clausen-black.indd 36

20-06-11 13:19



Learning to Talk (Dialogically) at School 37

to become socialized into school behaviours, including talking. I needed also to eradicate the power difference in being a professor to teachers deeply socialized to recognize authority. Being told when, where, and how students can talk in school has a long history, from “No talking in the hallways!” to being seated facing forward in the classroom, which delimits and directs discussion (McKenna 2010). Rena Upitis (2004) underscores how school design anticipates and reinforces teacher-centred transmission learning. The traditional closed classroom – standard in a school built in the 1960s – is, in effect, a container for processing learning. This metaphor follows logically on Sir Kenneth Robinson’s (2010) description of education as manufacturing: a linear assembly-line process aiming for conformity. The aim of conformity – in educational parlance: standards – was at the heart of what was wrong with conceptions of literacy at school, which answered to the needs of nineteenth-century industrialism rather than to developing twenty-first-century vistas of literacy in the Information Age. Researchers have long investigated and documented how teachers talk to students and how students talk to each other in the closed space of the classroom (see Cazden and Beck 2003). How teachers talk to other teachers and staff members, we know less about. But teacher talk formed within twentieth-century paradigms of education. From where I sat, it was time to move on. i d o n ’ t k n o w w h at y o u wa n t !

The protocol of professional development meetings asserts authority via the nomenclature used and the participatory roles for teachers, though, of course, schools have distinct cultures and formality varies not just from school to school but from teacher to teacher. Simply by introducing myself on a first-name basis in our teacher–researcher meetings, I flouted a formal top-down approach to professional inservice and established a different set of expectations for participation. In my thinking, I had taken part in teachers’ classrooms as a helper, and now I wanted to talk with them as a researcher about implementing a pilot exploratory study. But explicating theory to inform practice left the teachers who agreed to meet me after school uneasy: I aimed to share ideas; they expected instructions. I invited dialogue; they assumed demonstration. We looked at each other uncomfortably, then Sandra, in whose kindergarten I had read stories to children needing

31656_Clausen-black.indd 37

20-06-11 13:19

38

Heather Lotherington

help with English, looked me in the eye and asked: “So what do I do on Monday?” I had no idea. After the first couple of scraggly after-school meetings, Sandra decided that I was organizationally challenged and needed a helping hand. She offered a simple agenda for our meetings: learn, plan, share, wherein everyone could get a toehold on an idea and then talk about it. We agreed that the expectations around teaching literacy focused on twentieth-century practices, norms, technologies, and models. The teachers’ classes of children representing the world and speaking a range of none to some to excellent English were not what was assumed in the curriculum: idealized middle-class children who had been socialized into an English-speaking home replete with children’s books and bedtime stories. We had a common problem and a common goal. We had to find a common language to collaborate in our problem-solving experimentation. Learning to talk together was a fundamental step in setting a collaborative action research agenda. t h e d i a l o g i c n at u r e o f c o l l a b o r at i v e action research

As Peter Reason and Hilary Bradbury (2006, 2) point out, “action research is only possible with, for and by persons and communities, ideally involving all stakeholders both in the questioning and sensemaking that informs the research, and in the action which is its focus [original emphases].” Our teacher-researcher workshops developed as a community of practice (Wenger 1998) based on a shared interest in updating literacy education consistent with students’ cultural knowledge and the affordances of new technologies. Cheryl, the principal, described our forum as a learning community. Our action research agenda was iteratively shaped within the give-and-take of the learning community, growing in sophistication from my initial question re: how multiliteracies could be merged into school practice (which included asking what multiliteracies might entail), to our pilot study exploring a narrative (digital) rewriting activity that put kids and their cultural understanding inside their remixed texts, toward an elaborated agenda aiming to:   1 invite community-based languages into the culturally diverse classroom and into the texts children were creating to build a model of plurilingual education; and

31656_Clausen-black.indd 38

20-06-11 13:19



Learning to Talk (Dialogically) at School 39

  2 use digitally immersive mediated technologies to create customized textual products and advance language and literacy learning. Action research is characterized by democratic dialogue on an issue or problem of mutual motivating interest and involvement; it is fundamentally collaborative and participatory. My socialization into school talk and teachers’ acculturation to action research had to meet in the middle to facilitate dialogic learning. The concept of dialogic learning is attributed to the early twentiethcentury Russian scholar Mikhail Bakhtin ([1975] 1981). My understanding of Bakhtin’s theories on the complex layering of meaning in discourse has informed my teaching as well as my orientation to action research. In Bakhtin’s view, now nearly a century old, dialogue is imbued with the voices of the participants who co-create a contextual web of meaning. In Bakhtin’s ([1975] 1981, 282) (translated) words, “understanding and response are dialectically merged and mutually condition each other; one is impossible without the other.” Bakhtin’s theorizing distinguishes the inside space of a dialogue such as we were developing in our learning community, where words are persuasive, from outside spaces, where authoritative words prevail (Wegerif 2013). His theorizing was contextualized in a time and place of inflexible and undemocratic centralized authority (which mercifully we do not have to endure). However, the institution of formal education, which is hierarchically managed and complexly networked, does constitute a centralizing (though not unyielding) authority; our inside space needed to flourish unhindered by external authority that attributed success and failure to test results. The agency to establish ourselves as internally empowered to accomplish an ambitious theory-practice intervention was possible only with the principal’s visionary support. Her leadership style was to lead from behind, giving authority to teachers to take responsibility for teaching and learning (Paige 2017). Our learning community, thus, formed its own authority. The novelty of offering ideas not stratified by authority softened teachers’ fear of saying something wrong or not getting it: anxieties accompanying transmission learning, where there is a right answer. In our construal of action research resting on democratic dialogue (toward dialogic learning), there could be no wrong answer – only ideas to be discussed, shaped in action, planned into practice, tried out, and rejigged for fine-tuning or revised for a more substantial

31656_Clausen-black.indd 39

20-06-11 13:19

40

Heather Lotherington

overhaul, depending on the results. The fit is between idea-generation, academic and research goals, and a process to embody these in activities and textual products. Fundamental to this problem solving endeavour, I learned to: a establish a safe space where teachers could speak freely, away from the constraints of school hierarchies, union differences, time and money limits, and so forth; and b reconstruct the concept of failure, which, far from being a conclusive negative result, indicates where and how an idea might be better realized in practice once problem areas are analyzed. This treatment of failure is deeply at odds with entrenched notions of success at school. Discussion of projects that went sideways sometimes worked and sometimes did not. Occasionally, teachers held to school notions of failure as terminal and gave up. This was a sad moment. Our deepest learning came from projects that initially did not work very well and needed to be rehashed, redirected, and retried: rinsed and repeated, in the words of my co-researcher post-2008, professor of technology, culture, and pedagogy, Dr Jen Jenson. Projects that flopped needed much more analysis and, often, time. They yielded important critical information. unboxing the curriculum

If the classroom boxed in learning, then so, too, did the curriculum, which outlined expectations for deliverable learning to be checked off (translation: transmission teaching) rather than opening learning vistas. In my judgment, this devalued teachers’ professional preparedness to inspire learning, inducing doubt that they could “cover it all.” At the end of a decade working together, we would discover that nothing could be further from the truth (see Lotherington and Paige 2017). As the lid was lifted off curricular boxes, creative exploration, agentive participation, and enjoyment in learning shot past the curricular post. There have been calls to remove subjects from their siloes for more than a half century. Marshall McLuhan (1965, 35) predicted a “changeover to an interrelation in knowledge, where before the separate

31656_Clausen-black.indd 40

20-06-11 13:19



Learning to Talk (Dialogically) at School 41

subjects of the curriculum had stood apart from each other.” The principal did not want a silo mentality at Joyce Public School; she wanted teachers working together with a collective purpose and ownership. Not only are school subjects traditionally separated into siloes, but these siloes are differentially valued. Robinson (2006) notes a remarkable parallelism in the subject hierarchies taught in schools around the world, with mathematics at the pinnacle of achievement, followed by the humanities, with arts at the bottom. He decries the low status of the embodied art of dance, which is typically viewed as least central to learning, and humorously notes the rapid shift from embodied to cerebral engagement in school: “truthfully what happens is, as children grow up we start to educate them progressively from the waist up, and then we focus on their heads, and slightly to one side” (9:14–9:23). Our school–university collaboration discovered that multimodal literacies encouraged tearing down the subject siloes that checkered the timetabled day (necessitating innovative timetable shuffling to counteract) and remixing them in cross-curricular projects that required problem-solving and invited creative textual production. This encouraged embodied learning, including dance and drama as powerful mechanisms for telling a story (see Lotherington 2011). In a province where mandatory standardized assessment still separately tests the traditional nineteenth-century 3R basics – reading, writing, and mathematics – our aims to interlace subjects into projects, create spaces for local languages, and inject a sense of digital play were bravely counter-establishment. It was of great interest to all of us that children’s achievement on mandatory test scores improved remarkably during the tenure of our action research (Paige and Lotherington 2017). This was not causative, of course, but the correlation suggests that students’ agency in learning was empowering, positively affecting their problem-solving, creative thinking, and confidence. Our learning community was forming in mirror image to the umbrella issue we were exploring: twenty-first-century communication, mediated by new technologies and involving the voices of the culturally diverse community. The concept of superdiversity introduced by Steven Vertovec (2007), speaking to the radiating complexity in migration trends worldwide, was part of our pedagogical scenario. It described us as a group. We were, in tandem with the children, using what pundits refer to as the 4Cs of twenty-first-century communication competencies:

31656_Clausen-black.indd 41

20-06-11 13:19

42 • • • •

Heather Lotherington

Critical thinking (and problem-solving) Communication Collaboration Creativity (and innovation). (Partnership for 21st Century Learning 2015; Ministry of Education 2016) l e a r n i n g t o c o l l a b o r at e i n ta l k a n d a c t i o n

Robinson (2006, 12:43–12:46) asserts that “we have built our education systems on the model of fast food,” suggesting (2010) that schooling ought to be less like manufacturing and more like agriculture: in pursuit of organic growth maximizing the potential of the individual. Our learning community was not so much planned as formed organically; it evolved by understanding discourse expectations from the perspectives of the teacher and the researcher. As Courtney Cazden and Sarah Beck (2003, 166) explain, “learning new ways with words entails taking on new interactional roles and the new identities they create and express.” This took time. We began as a tentative ad hoc after-school meeting, and as the principal saw the potential of our learning community and evolving action research agenda as a forum for professional development, we were timetabled into the school calendar as an autonomous authoritative body. This was an important validating move. In the formative days of our learning community, teachers were not required to collaborate with each other on cross-curricular projects, though many chose to do so. We soon learned, though, that working solo often led to a teacher’s undoing. Without the support of a team, teachers got stuck, confused, or overwhelmed by curricular goals. Given the problems of working alone, Jen and I as co-researchers made collaborative project planning and team-teaching a contractual feature of the research methodology. This worked well within the school, and we shifted into collaborative design as a modus operandi. Our monthly workshops developed as a marriage of the teachers’ expectations for orderly progress, including an element of teaching and agenda-setting, an open floor to sharing, a space for group planning, and my learning how to talk in schools, which entailed respecting teachers’ concomitant responsibilities within the timetabled school day: playground duty at recess, for example. Teachers needed to have faith that they could imagine brilliant ideas with their knowledge of the children, their subjects, the curriculum, and the community.

31656_Clausen-black.indd 42

20-06-11 13:19



Learning to Talk (Dialogically) at School 43

And they did just that as they relaxed into collegial planning, crosscurricular project-building, and open sharing of problems, issues, and children’s processes and products. bringing theory and practice together: d e v e l o p i n g o u r c o l l a b o r at i v e r e s e a r c h a g e n d a

The teachers, whom professorial and graduate student researchers had the privilege of working with over a decade, devised a number of ingenious solutions2 to teaching classes of linguistically heterogeneous children speaking languages, such as Twi, Pashto, and Tagalog, that they had limited knowledge about. This challenge is common in urban centres that attract large numbers of migrants. Teachers accomplished their brilliant solutions to incorporating linguistic plurality in the urban classroom in a society that politically privileges English and French and limits knowledge of and opportunities to learn other languages that are spoken across our cosmopolitan city. They did this by working together for a common goal: developing multiliteracies pedagogies for children at jps. They experimented in their own classrooms, welcoming theoretical and practical guidance in situ. We learned how to involve parents in educational projects that required their help in translation to create bilingual and multilingual narration. Ultimately, this invited into the school parents whose abilities and confidence in English were sometimes poor. Teachers did this by highlighting parents’ helpfulness to their children’s education – and to ours. We brought theory and practice together with and for the children of the school, finding solutions with what we could access, not by benefit of an externally funded wish list. I argue, consistent with McAteer (2013), that the results of action research reach further than grounded practitioner research – valuable though this is. The theorypractice nexus produces hermeneutic and historical knowledge: critical knowledge production usefully transferable to other contexts and other social conditions. The teachers at jps produced not only groundbreaking new pedagogies for their classes but a methodological way forward for other teacher-researchers facing their own in-school issues. Robinson (2010) claims that school reform is not enough. The system is broken; we need revolution, not evolution, in education. In our learning community, based in a public elementary school in northwest Toronto, we quietly revolutionized schooling through a collaborative action research agenda designed for goal-directed in-house

31656_Clausen-black.indd 43

20-06-11 13:19

44

Heather Lotherington

collaborative problem-solving. In the process of changing how to learn and teach contemporary multimodal literacies within the shell of the traditional classroom and the requirements of the curriculum, we learned the following: •

•

•

•

•

Learning to talk dialogically in school required my appreciating how to communicate within the hierarchical scaffolding of formal schooling and participating teachers learning to communicate within the safety of an in-house community of practice that functioned as its own authority. In dialogic learning, there is no wrong answer; failure indexes learning, not lack thereof. Our in-house communication morphed alongside the multimodal literacies teachers were developing to teach children. Dialogic learning changed the tenor of our communication (which also spread via a digital channel to a satellite learning community site in Taiwan), fostered immense creativity and innovation, facilitated innovative collaborations, and invoked critical thinking and problem-solving as integral to progress; these are the hypothesized 4Cs of contemporary communication. We, thus, practised what we preached. Unboxing the curriculum and unleashing subjects from their siloes meant moving past curricular objectives and standards, which functioned not only as floors to learning but as ceilings to achievement. Creating the conditions for action research at school was facilitated by visionary leadership that entrusted our learning community with the agency and authority to solve the problems that brought us together. t h e f u t u r e o f c o l l a b o r at i v e a c t i o n r e s e a r c h ?

As contexts change, so do problems. The beauty of action research is that it is tailored to contextual needs. In an increasingly complex world, collaborative action research offers a path to constructive, cooperative problem-solving in context. Over our lengthy researcher-teacher collaboration, our learning community grounded theory in local pedagogical practice (e.g., Lotherington 2011), mobilized a viable model of in-house professional development (e.g., Lotherington, Fisher, Jenson, and Lindo 2016; Lotherington, Paige, and Holland-Spencer 2013), disseminated

31656_Clausen-black.indd 44

20-06-11 13:19



Learning to Talk (Dialogically) at School 45

research findings with the international academic community (e.g., Lotherington 2013; Lotherington and Jenson 2011; Lotherington and Paige 2017), and developed cutting-edge pedagogies that have been shared in professional teacher communities (e.g., Lotherington and Chow 2006; Lotherington, Holland, Sotoudeh, and Zentena 2008). Our narrative provides a blueprint for functionally redesigning formal education in context – then, now, and in the developing future as we struggle to rewrite formal literacy education.

notes

 1 Multiliteracies discourse began to preferentially use the term multimodal literacies in the twenty-first century.   2 See, e.g., https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8zabcX_zoP0; https:// www.youtube.com/watch? v=04VsndXbULw. references

Bakhtin, Mikhail Mikhaĭlovich. [1975] 1981. “Discourse in the Novel.” In The Dialogic Imagination: Four Essays by M. M. Bakhtin, edited by Michael Holquist, translated by Caryl Emerson and Michael Holquist, 257–422. Austin, tx: University of Texas Press. Cazden, Courtney B., and Sarah W. Beck. 2003. “Classroom Discourse.” In Handbook of Discourse Processes, edited by Arthur C. Graesser, Morton Ann Gernsbacher, and Susan R. Goldman, 165–97. Mahwah, nj : Lawrence Erlbaum. Cope, Bill, and Mary Kalantzis. 2000. Multiliteracies: Literacy Learning and the Design of Social Futures. London, UK: Routledge. Cummins, Jim. 2006. “Identity Texts: The Imaginative Construction of Self through Multiliteracies Pedagogy.” In Imagining Multilingual Schools: Languages in Education and Glocalization, edited by Ofelia García, Tove Skutnabb-Kangas, and María E. Torres-Guzmán, 51–68. Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters. Granger, Colette, Mary Leigh Morbey, Heather Lotherington, Ron Owston, and Herb Wideman. 2002. “Factors Contributing to Teachers’ Successful Implementation of i t.” Journal of Computer Assisted Learning 18, 480–8. Lotherington, Heather. 2003. “Multiliteracies in Springvale: Negotiating Language, Culture and Identity in Suburban Melbourne.” In Language Socialization in Bilingual and Multilingual Societies, edited by Robert

31656_Clausen-black.indd 45

20-06-11 13:19

46

Heather Lotherington

Bayley and Sandra R. Schechter, 200–17. Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters. – 2011. Pedagogy of Multiliteracies: Rewriting Goldilocks. New York, ny: Routledge. – 2013. “Creating Third Spaces in the Linguistically Heterogeneous Classroom for the Advancement of Plurilingualism.” tesol Quarterly 47, 619–25. Lotherington, Heather, and Sandra Chow. 2006. “Rewriting Goldilocks in the Urban, Multicultural Elementary School.” The Reading Teacher 60(3), 244–52. Lotherington, Heather, Stephanie Fisher, Jennifer Jenson, and Laura Mae Lindo. 2016. “Professional Development from the Inside Out: Redesigning Learning through Collaborative Action Research.” In New Literacies and Teacher Learning Professional Development and the Digital Turn, edited by Michele Knobel and Judy Kalman, 65–87. New York, n y: Peter Lang. Lotherington, Heather, Michelle Holland, Shiva Sotoudeh, and Mike Zentena. 2008. “Project-Based Community Language Learning: Three Narratives of Multilingual Storytelling in Early Childhood Education.” Canadian Modern Language Review 65(1), 125–45. Lotherington, Heather, and Jennifer Jenson. 2011. “Teaching Multimodal and Digital Literacy in L2 Settings: New Literacies, New Basics, New Pedagogies.” Annual Review of Applied Linguistics 31, 226–46. Lotherington, Heather, and Cheryl Paige, eds. 2017. Teaching Young Learners in a Superdiverse World: Multimodal Perspectives and Approaches. New York, n y: Routledge. Lotherington, Heather, Cheryl Paige, and Michelle Holland-Spencer. 2013. “Using a Professional Learning Community to Support Multimodal Literacies.” In What Works? Research into Practice. Toronto, on: Literacy and Numeracy Secretariat. http://www.edu.gov.on.ca/eng/­ literacynumeracy/inspire/research/WW_Professional_Learning.pdf. McAteer, Mary. 2013. Action Research in Education. Los Angeles, c a : Sage. McKenna, Tom. 2010. “You Are Where You Sit: Uncovering the Lessons of Classroom Furniture.” Rethinking Schools 25(1). http://bit. ly/1cGvuFy. McLuhan, Marshall. 1965. Understanding Media: The Extensions of Man. New York, n y: McGraw Hill. Ministry of Education. 2016. Towards Defining 21st Century Competencies for Ontario. Toronto, on: Queen’s Printer for Ontario.

31656_Clausen-black.indd 46

20-06-11 13:19



Learning to Talk (Dialogically) at School 47

http://www.edugains.ca/resources21CL/About21stCentury/21CL_21st​ CenturyCompetencies.pdf. New London Group. 1996. “A Pedagogy of Multiliteracies: Designing Social Factors.” Harvard Educational Review 66(1), 60–92. Paige, Cheryl. 2017. “Creating a Culture of Success at Joyce Public School.” In Teaching Young Learners in a Superdiverse World: Multimodal Perspectives and Approaches, edited by Heather Lotherington and Cheryl Paige, 9–30. New York, ny: Routledge. Paige, Cheryl, and Heather Lotherington. 2017. “21st Century Learning as Discovery.” In Teaching Young Learners in a Superdiverse World: Multimodal Perspectives and Approaches, edited by Heather Lotherington and Cheryl Paige, 187–217. New York, ny: Routledge. Partnership for 21st Century Learning. 2015. “P21 Framework Definitions Document (Report).” Retrieved from: http://www.p21.org/storage/­ documents/docs/P21_Framework_Definitions_New_Logo_2015.pdf. Reason, Peter, and Hilary Bradbury. 2006. “Introduction: Inquiry and Participation in Search of a World Worthy of Human Aspiration.” In Handbook of Action Research, edited by Peter Reason and Hilary Bradbury, 1–14. London, UK: Sage. Robinson, Ken. 2006. “Do Schools Kill Creativity?” Filmed 2006 at ted. Video: 19:22. https://www.ted.com/talks/ken_robinson_says_schools_ kill_creativity? – 2010. “Bring on the Learning Revolution.” Filmed 2010 at ted. Video: 17:51. https://www.ted.com/talks/ sir_ken_robinson_bring_on_the_revolution. Upitis, Rena. 2004. “School Architecture and Complexity.” Complicity: An International Journal of Complexity and Education 1(1), 19–38. Vertovec, Steven. 2007. “Super-Diversity and Its Implications.” Ethnic and Racial Studies 30(6), 1024–54. Wegerif, Rupert. 2013. Dialogic Education for the Internet Age. London, UK: Routledge. Wenger, Etienne. 1998. “Communities of Practice: Learning as a Social System.” Systems Thinker 9(5), 2–3.

31656_Clausen-black.indd 47

20-06-11 13:19

3 Looking Back and Looking Forward A Retrospective and Prospective of Action Research and Physical Education in the Twenty-First Century Daniel B. Robinson

For some time, action research has been identified as an especially suitable research methodology for addressing specific educational problems (Carr and Kemmis 1986; Creswell 2005; Stringer 2004). Consequently, many researchers and teachers within education contexts and systems have utilized action research in the past number of years. Within Canada, evidence of action research’s legitimacy and influence within education has been readily observable on a number of fronts. For example, the Canadian Journal of Action Research is now entering its twentieth year of publication, and the Canadian Association for Teacher Education (cat e ) has a healthy and robust number of scholars within its own action research special interest group (si g) – the Canadian Association of Action Research in Education (c a a r e ). Certainly, the publication of this text, The Future of Action Research in Education: A Canadian perspective, also speaks to the optimism and promising potential for action research within our nation. Indeed, this is a good time to be a Canadian education scholar with an interest in action research. However, despite action research being embraced – both in the past and at present – by many within education, the same cannot be said for action research within the physical education sub-discipline (Casey, Dyson, and Campbell 2009; Enright and O’Sullivan 2010a). In fact, it has now been more than twenty-five years since Richard Tinning

31656_Clausen-black.indd 48

20-06-11 13:19



Looking Back and Looking Forward 49

(1992), one of the most notable physical education scholars and pedagogues, first lamented that action research suffered an especially limited history and uptake within the discipline. In some respects, this continues today. Though the hesitant adoption of action research might be attributed to any number of factors, the long-standing tradition of privileging positivistic research paradigms within physical education (and its closely related disciplines of kinesiology, human kinetics, and sports science) is likely largely to blame. As many within the field are aware, positivism has been and (to many) continues to be the dominant research paradigm for physical education and sport pedagogy research (Curtner-Smith 2002; Sparkes 1992; 1994). As Curtner-Smith (2002, 38) astutely observed, “until relatively recently it was the only paradigm within which sport pedagogy researchers worked.” This was no exaggeration. Moreover, and clearly related to the privileged influence of positivistic research paradigms and discourses, research within physical education has often positioned students as objects of study and has, consequently, relied upon entirely deductive research techniques (Enright and O’Sullivan 2010a; Erickson and Schulz 1992; Robinson 2013; Tinning 1992). It is no understatement to suggest that, for many years and in many circles, action research was simply unwelcome within physical education. Still, with the passage of time and the broadening of research conceptions, physical education researchers have become increasingly attentive to Tinning’s (1992) observation. As “alternative” visions for research within physical education become more commonplace (Sparkes 1992), interpretive and critical research goals, methods, and designs invite the consideration and implementation of other research possibilities (Curtner-Smith 2002). More specifically, as physical education researchers continue to challenge boundaries related to what may “count” as research, knowing, and knowledge, action research becomes increasingly appropriate as a possible research methodology and sound research tradition (Armour and Macdonald 2012; Rossi and Tan 2012). And so, we in physical education find ourselves in a somewhat hopeful position. Though action research may have been late coming to our field and though most physical education researchers have heretofore made limited use of it, we ought to be somewhat satisfied knowing that action research’s greatest contributions to physical education are beyond the horizon. The best – or at least better – is yet to come.

31656_Clausen-black.indd 49

20-06-11 13:19

50

Daniel B. Robinson

Given the as-of-yet largely unrealized potential of action research within physical education, the purpose of this chapter is two-fold. First, it provides a scoping review of twenty-first-century research (i.e., 2001–15) related to action research in physical education. Second, borrowing from this limited research and personal experiences as a physical education teacher-educator and action researcher, possibilities for future action research within physical education – for researchers and teachers – are offered. This chapter, then, offers both a retrospective and a prospective picture of action research within physical education. It is meant to allow readers, particularly those readers who are also physical education scholars, pedagogues, researchers, and teachers, to both look back and look forward at action research within physical education. looking back: a retrospective of action r e s e a r c h i n p h y s i c a l e d u c at i o n

Since Tinning’s (1992) initial observation that action research was largely absent within the physical education field, others have made similar assertions (e.g., see Enright and O’Sullivan 2010a; Rossi and Tan 2012). By some accounts (e.g., Rossi and Tan 2012; Tinning 1992), the introduction of action research into physical education came with Len Almond’s (1986) early work, particularly as it related to physical education teachers’ implementation of the then-new Teaching Games for Understanding (t g fu ) instructional model. Though Almond detailed his action research processes and projects for others, it was not until 1988 that an action research study by North American physical education scholars was published in a peer-reviewed journal (see Martinek and Butt 1988). It would be another fifteen years before such a publication was authored by Canadian physical education researchers (see Halas and Sander 2003). Although a very limited number of action research studies (completed by especially notable physical education scholars) related to physical education were published in the latter part of the twentieth century (e.g., Fernández-Balboa 1998; Hastie 1997), the focus of this retrospective is upon twenty-first-century research. Consequently, what follows is a detailed account of results from a scoping review of action research within physical education for the first fifteen years of the twenty-first century.

31656_Clausen-black.indd 50

20-06-11 13:19



Looking Back and Looking Forward 51

boundaries for review

A literature search of “physical education” and “action research” (all text) was conducted in three electronic databases (S P O R T D iscus, P R O Q U E S T , ScienceDirect). These three databases were chosen because, together, they encompass a comprehensive catalogue of inschool physical education research literature. The searches were limited to English, peer-reviewed articles published between 1 January 2001 and 31 December 2015. The initial search resulted in 395 articles (384 once all exact and close duplicates were removed). All articles’ titles and/or abstracts were read to determine if the research: 1) reported on in-school physical education and 2) included, within that report, action research as a stated methodology. A number of articles – related, for example, to school-based physical activity and/or afterschool physical activity – were excluded because they did not address physical education. Once this process was complete, ninety-six articles required further scrutiny to determine if the research met these same two criteria. This initial screening stage resulted in thirty-one research studies. Following this, reference-checking and input from experts (with manual journal searches) revealed five additional suitable articles (see figure 3.1). An overview of these thirty-six publications, including information related to participants, data sources, and aims, can be found in the appendix. r e v i e w r e s u lt s

A consideration of all of the research studies located in this literature review allows for the identification of some notable observations. These observations are related to: 1) the infrequent yet increasing popularity of action research within physical education; 2) the growth of action research within physical education into more journals and more countries; 3) the positionality of researchers engaged in physical education–related action research; and 4) action research topics/themes. The infrequent yet increasing popularity of action r esea rc h wi t h i n p h ysi c a l e du cat i o n . As was expected, particularly given previously mentioned scholars’ observations related to the absence of action research within physical education, only

31656_Clausen-black.indd 51

20-06-11 13:19

52

Daniel B. Robinson Database search n = 395 Duplicates removed n = 11 Title/abstract screening n = 384 Irrelevant articles excluded n = 257 Full text screening n = 127

Irrelevant articles excluded n = 96

Manual journal search n=5 Included in final review n = 36

Figure 3.1  Review process and results

thirty-six articles were located through this scoping review of literature. Still, although this literature search revealed only thirty-six articles, it is noteworthy that there has been a very obvious increase in the number of these sorts of publications in recent years. With no publications within the first two years of the century (i.e., 2001, 2002) and fourteen publications within the two most recent years (i.e., 2014, 2015), action research within physical education is evidently gaining in popularity and usage. Consider this trend as it is illustrated in figure 3.2. The growth of action research within physical education into more journals and more countries. The first five years of the century (i.e., 2001–05) saw the publication of only five articles focused upon action research within physical education. These five articles were all related to action research completed within four Western nations (Canada, the United Kingdom, New Zealand, the United States), and they appeared in five different physical education–specific journals (the most notable of which were

31656_Clausen-black.indd 52

20-06-11 13:19



Looking Back and Looking Forward 53

8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015

Figure 3.2  Physical education/action research publications, 2001–2015.

Physical Education and Sport Pedagogy and Physical Educator). Eight articles were published in the second five years of the century (i.e., 2006–10), and they were, again, limited to research completed in four Western nations (Australia, the United Kingdom, Ireland, the United States). These publications were found within seven different journals, six of which were physical education–specific. In addition to Physical Education and Sport Pedagogy and Physical Educator, these publications were also found in European Physical Education Review and Journal of Teaching in Physical Education. One of the publications was also found in Educational Action Research. The next five years saw a marked increase in the number of these sorts of publications. More specifically, action research within ten different countries resulted in twenty-three publications within sixteen different journals. Nine of these ten countries were in the West (Russia was the lone exception); the other new nations included Belgium, Norway, and Spain. Sport, Education and Society had more publications than any other journal (six), and a small number of articles (four) were published within journals that were not overtly related to physical education (e.g., Canadian Journal of Action Research, Teaching and Teacher Education). The positionality of researchers engaged in physic a l educ at i o n– r e l at e d ac t i o n re s e arch . All thirty-six of the action research studies included university researchers as lead authors or co-authors. In all these cases, they were also participants

31656_Clausen-black.indd 53

20-06-11 13:19

31656_Clausen-black.indd 54

20-06-11 13:19

Journals

20

8 4 United States (4) Great Britain (2) Australia (1) Ireland (1)

2006–10

2011–15

23 10 Great Britain (5) United States (5) Canada (3) Australia (2) Ireland (2) New Zealand (2) Belgium (1) Norway (1) Russia (1) Spain (1) 5 7 16 Asian Journal of Exercise & Journal of Physical Sport, Education and Society (6) Sports Science (1) Education New Asia-Pacific Journal of Health, Sport & Physical Education (2) Educational Action Research (1) Canadian Journal of Action Research (2) Zealand (1) European Physical Education Physical & Health European Journal of Adapted Physical Activity (1) Education Journal (1) Review (2) European Physical Education Review (1) Physical Education ichper-sd Journal of Research ichper-sd Journal of Research (1) and Sport Pedagogy (1) Journal of School Health (1) (1) Journal of Teaching in Physical Journal of Teaching in Physical Education (1) Physical Educator (1) Education (1) Physical & Health Education Journal (1) Teaching Elementary Physical Education and Sport Physical Education and Sport Pedagogy (1) Physical Education (1) Pedagogy (1) Physical Educator (1) Physical Educator (1) Qualitative Research in Sport, Exercise and Health (1) Research in Learning Technology (1) Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport (1) Teaching and Teacher Education (1) Women in Sport and Physical Activity Journal (1)

5 4 United States (2) Canada (1) Great Britain (1) New Zealand (1)

2001–15 2001–05

Articles 36 Countries 10

Years

Table 3.1 Physical education/action research publications (by year, country, and journal)



Looking Back and Looking Forward 55

in the action research process, albeit along a number of possibilities within a continuum of positionality (Herr and Anderson 2005). With few authors explicitly identifying their positionality, and with action research necessarily enabling multiple levels of positionality at different times during the action research process, it is a near impossible task to accurately summarize these levels here. Still, some observations may be shared. For example, perhaps only two action research studies were true “insider” studies in which university professor–researchers researched their own practice (i.e., Casey, Goodyear, and Dyson 2015 [note, however, that Casey was a teacher-researcher at the time of the action research]; Lorente and Kirk 2013). Some positioned university researchers as insiders in collaboration with other insiders (e.g., Bowes and Tinning 2015; Mohr, Haley, and Mohr 2003) while others had university researchers positioned as outsiders in collaboration with insiders (e.g., Couturier, Chepko, and Coughlin 2007; Halas and Sander 2003). Few were studies in which university researchers could be positioned as outsiders studying insiders (e.g., Enright and O’Sullivan 2010a). In addition to university researchers, all thirty-six studies included additional individuals as sources of input and/or data related to planning, acting, observing, and reflecting. For example, ten studies’ most “active” participants were university researchers and physical education teacher education (pete) students, eight were university researchers and students, seven were university researchers and teachers, and seven were university researchers, teachers, and students (the other two included parents/guardians). Action research topics/themes. The action research topics/ themes were related, primarily, to three main ideas: improving physical education experiences and learning for students, improving physical education instruction of in-service teachers (through, e.g., professional development), and improving physical education instruction of preservice teachers (through, e.g., p e t e ). Most of the studies (thirteen) focused primarily upon improving physical education experiences and learning for students. Very often these action research studies focused upon marginalized students – mostly female students (e.g., Couturier, Chepko, and Coughlin, 2007; Fisette, 2011; Robinson, 2013). Action research studies that focused primarily upon improving physical education instruction of in-service teachers (seven) or pre-service teachers (eight) included a number of different actions and interventions. These

31656_Clausen-black.indd 55

20-06-11 13:19

56

Daniel B. Robinson

were related, for example, to professional learning communities and technology implementation. Moreover, and only in the most recent years, a small number of the action research studies included a purposeful implementation and study of various instructional models. For example, recent action research studies related to models-based practice focused upon some of physical education’s most recognizable instructional models: tgfu (Jarrett, Eloi, and Harvey 2014), Teaching for Personal and Social Responsibility (tpsr; Severinson 2014), and Sport Education (Glotova and Hastie 2014). l o o k i n g f o r wa r d : a p r o s p e c t i v e o f a c t i o n r e s e a r c h i n p h y s i c a l e d u c at i o n

If, as I have suggested, action research’s greatest contributions to physical education are beyond the horizon, what possibilities might be found (or, perhaps more appropriately, co-created) there? In many ways, those within physical education who have already disseminated their action research stories have given us a starting point, a foundation upon which to build. Their work certainly provided today’s and the future’s action researchers with plenty of examples of how university researchers might engage (and engage with others) in action research to address “problems” that might exist in classrooms, schools, or pete programs. With this limited body of literature, we can carry on, exploring and establishing other action research possibilities within physical education. In an effort to provide an overview of the sorts of possibilities I hope for and envision, I offer three practices for contemplation: 1) a purposeful focus upon practical and emancipatory/critical action research; 2) a similarly purposeful focus upon authentically collaborative action research with physical education’s most important “players” (e.g., students, student teachers, and teachers) and 3) graduate programs that enable/require students to engage in action research within their own school communities. beyond the technical: practical and e m a n c i pat o r y / c r i t i c a l a c t i o n r e s e a r c h

Bain (1990) suggested that action research has the potential to serve as the basis for critical pedagogy in physical education. Observing that action research is a “collaborative, participatory process in which

31656_Clausen-black.indd 56

20-06-11 13:19



Looking Back and Looking Forward 57

participants attempt to improve a situation by improving their understanding of what is occurring” (Bain 1990, 30) and that, until then, action research within physical education focused largely upon preservice and in-service education of physical education teachers, Bain suggested action research might instead have untapped potential in fostering critical discourse in physical education classes. Tinning (1992) has shared similar sentiments. More specifically, and grounding his observations in those offered earlier by Carr and Kemmis (1986), Tinning suggested action research could be labelled as technical, practical, or – and this is what might be construed as “authentic” action research by some – emancipatory/critical. When viewed alongside one another, these three forms of action research differ, markedly, in the types of knowledge they aim to acquire as well as in the human interests they hope to address. Technical action research often focuses upon prediction and control so that the knowledge sought is most often instrumental (Tinning 1992). While such action research projects might improve practice in some way or another, their focus upon the knowledge and interests of the facilitators (i.e., “others,” who are generally outsiders) misses the mark with respect to focusing upon the knowledge, interests, and circumstances of practitioners themselves. Alternatively, practical action research privileges the knowledge, interests, and circumstances of practitioners, necessarily placing them at the fore. With this shift, the pursuit of knowledge and the satisfaction of interests become more practical; interpretation and understanding may shape moral judgments in action (Tinning 1992). Emancipatory/critical action research also privileges the knowledge, interests, and circumstances of practitioners. However, it also moves beyond practical questions and solutions, requiring those involved to engage with (social) issues in a purposeful and contemplative manner. Emancipatory/critical action researchers share a socially conscious and critical-oriented world view. Accordingly, they recognize the importance of identifying and addressing human interests rather than only their own. Though there are, to some, worthwhile applications related to action research for technical purposes, I suggest that the greatest promise can be found in practical and emancipatory/critical action research approaches. Outsiders engaging in action research with disconnected insiders (with entirely instrumental goals) miss the spirit of action research (Carr and Kemmis 1986) and fail to contribute to my own (and others’) ongoing call for critical pedagogy within physical

31656_Clausen-black.indd 57

20-06-11 13:19

58

Daniel B. Robinson

education (e.g., see Harvey 2014; Robinson and Randall 2016). So, while I am suggesting that practical action research has an important place with future physical education–related inquiries, I am also suggesting that there is greater potential and value within emancipatory/ critical action research. So, in what ways might emancipatory/critical action research approaches be used within physical education? Insiders might engage in self-studies of their own (and/or their institutions’) structures, practices, curricula, and/or discourses that are limiting or marginalizing some people while enabling and privileging others. There are a multitude of examples of intersecting and marginalized identities within physical education. For example, consider those who are female, those who are differently abled, those who are lgbt, or those who are obese. Physical education has for a long time been a site for distress and discomfort for so many. Emancipatory/critical action research might enable physical education teachers-as-researchers to redress some of the most long-standing inequities and injustices within (their) physical education practice. At least, I believe it has that potential. i n v i t i n g a n d e n a b l i n g i n v e s t e d pa rt n e r s

Kemmis and McTaggart’s (1988) familiar description of what action research is not meant to be really identifies four essential characteristics that ought to always be present in action research. The first of these four suggests that action research should be a collaborative venture in which many invested people collect evidence (and, ideally and as appropriate and possible, also take part in planning, acting, observing) so that rigorous group reflection is possible (Kemmis and McTaggart 1988; Tinning et al. 1996). Kemmis and McTaggart further suggest that action research really ought not to be conceptualized as research done on others but, rather, that it ought to be conceptualized as research done by people on their own work. While Herr and Anderson (2005) may explain that university researchers can position themselves as outsiders when studying insiders, such positional arrangements ought to be purposely avoided in favour of others that better approximate the notion of authentic collaboration. Kemmis and McTaggart suggest a reciprocal insider-outsider team is ideal. I suggest that this and the three other insider positions (i.e., insider researching self/ practice, insider in collaboration with other insiders, insider in collaboration with outsiders) all position researchers as genuinely invested

31656_Clausen-black.indd 58

20-06-11 13:19



Looking Back and Looking Forward 59

participants. Equally important, they also position participants as invested researchers. So to avoid suggesting that outsider studies of insiders ought to be entirely abandoned, let me be clear about what is, to me, a suitable practical application. University researchers, as outsiders, may study and report upon action research completed by others (note, however, how such a notion quickly blurs the lines between an action research study and a study about action research). It is not lost on me and, I hope, on the reader as well that such a call for inviting and enabling invested partners to action research aligns with my previous call to abandon technical applications and goals in favour of practical and (better yet) emancipatory/critical ones. These are overlapping suggestions, with the same end in mind: including, in an authentic and genuine manner, those who are most invested in the problems posed and the solutions to be found. Within physical education–related action research, this means including students, student teachers, and teachers. The identification of these three groups of individuals is not meant to suggest that they may only be included as potential partners. However, and let me again be clear, I am also suggesting they have a great and important role in this regard. That is, action research related to improving physical education experiences and learning for students, improving physical education instruction of in-service teachers, and improving physical education instruction of pre-service teachers must include these very individuals. They certainly ought to be included in as many phases of action research that concern them as possible. Otherwise, action researchers risk positioning these individuals as outsiders or, worse, as objects of study. What I am also suggesting here is that action research has an additional future possibility within physical education. Students, student teachers, and teachers themselves can become action researchers. They may become agents of inquiry and change related to their own roles and lives within physical education. Granted, others have been suggesting that teachers ought to engage in action research as practitioners, though mostly in technical or practical manners. However, physical education teachers experienced and well-versed in action research might also support students so that they can do the same. With physical education teachers’ leadership and scaffolding, their students might find their own problems and, through a cyclical process, come to their own actions, answers, and solutions. Likewise, p e t e programs might also consider preparing their p e t e students to do the same. For example, they might require (or enable)

31656_Clausen-black.indd 59

20-06-11 13:19

60

Daniel B. Robinson

their student teachers to engage in their own action research projects during their term or field experience. i l l u s t r at i v e e x a m p l e s : a c t i o n r e s e a r c h w i t h i n a g r a d u at e p r o g r a m

I recognize the value in having physical education teachers engage in their own action research inquiries. Let me explain our university’s context and how I have encouraged in-service physical education teachers/graduate students to engage in action research. Here, at my own university, we are nearing completion of our fifth master of education (m e d) cohort of in-service physical education teachers. In just over one year, they, like the others before them, will have completed their m e d degrees. Of the hundreds of graduate students within our m e d program, very few complete theses or capping projects. Most complete twelve courses in an entirely coursebased route. Until very recently, this course-based route has required students to complete a research methods course, but it has not required them to actually engage in research as researchers. That is, they have been taught and expected to be “consumers” rather than “producers” of research. Recognizing this limitation, I have started to require, as a condition for convocation, that students within our physical education cohort complete an action research project in the final year of their m e d. This action research requirement has enabled physical education teachers to engage in personally meaningful inquiries very closely related to their own practice. Tasked with first identifying an issue to address, they work with their peers and with me to design an action research project. The fruits of this initiative include some of the most genuine and authentic actions, results, and reflections I have encountered. Some have made an effort to address students’ knowledge and compassion related to (dis)ability within physical education, designing an “intervention” to educate their students so that they might become more aware of and oriented toward an inclusive disposition. Others have introduced instructional models (e.g., tgfu) in an effort to improve upon their students’ games understanding. Such action research studies also required teachers to change and reflect upon their own teaching practice. Others have designed and studied “girlfriendly” curricula and/or activities. They have found that they have

31656_Clausen-black.indd 60

20-06-11 13:19



Looking Back and Looking Forward 61

been able to improve upon the participation and experiences of some of their until-then marginalized female students. The applications of action research to physical education have been almost limitless. Equipping all of these graduate students with knowledge about action research, and also inculcating within many of them a critical pedagogy orientation (e.g., see Ruiz and Fernández-Balboa 2005), has resulted in a number of in-class action research initiatives in physical education programs across the province. Recognizing the value in these many applications, I suggest that others who oversee similar course-based graduate programs should consider implementing a similar practice. concluding thoughts

The “Invisibility” of Action Research Though I initially identified the totality of action research within physical education within the twenty-first century, as any professor would know all too well, so much of what is accomplished in the name of action research will necessarily always remain “invisible” to many. My own graduate students’ action research studies were not part of a thesis, so there was no effort made to gain ethical approval from our institution. No theses remain in our library. Consequently, only their peers and I know their action research stories. They simply do not (or cannot) reach outside of those walls. I share this because it really highlights a limitation in what I have presented throughout this chapter. I (and we) cannot know of all action research within physical education. I can only know that which is published and that which I am privy to (e.g., my own students’ action research projects). It is also important to recognize that action research does not need to be published in peer-reviewed journals to be “good” – and, more important, to have an impact and/or make a “difference.” So, take what I have shared with this disclaimer: so much of what is done in the name of action research remains invisible. This should also highlight the need for action researchers within physical education to find appropriate venues to disseminate their work – to share with others the fruits of their labours. There is so much that can be learned from others’ action research initiatives. We need to find creative ways to make such learning possible.

31656_Clausen-black.indd 61

20-06-11 13:19

62

Daniel B. Robinson

My Beginnings and Future Directions My introduction to action research came many years ago when I was a graduate student at the University of Alberta (u of a). There, I had the privilege of having Dr Terry Carson as a professor. It was he who introduced me to what was then an entirely different way to go about research within physical education. I suspect that his contributions to action research, both to my peers at u of a and to the broader education community (e.g., see Carson 1990; Carson and Sumara 1997), continue to resonate with many. I am truly grateful to Dr Carson for his role in shaping my own understanding of action research and its possible applications. It was entirely through good luck that I came across Dr Carson and his action research course. At the time, action research was given minimal (if any) time within u of a’s required research methods courses; it was only by taking Dr Carson’s elective course that I chanced upon it. Still, it was with the foundation he offered that I have been able to engage in action research and teach my graduate students to do the same. I give many thanks, then, to Dr Carson. Action research is not my only research methodology or adopted orientation. I am engaged in a number of research ventures and, to be truthful, mostly rely upon entirely different methodologies and orientations. Still, given the limited history and the promising future I foresee, I will continue to engage in action research. My hope is that others within physical education will start and/or continue to do the same. The Path I See on the Horizon I do not think that I stand alone when I say that I see a promising future for action research and physical education. Indeed, I was recently encouraged when I discovered that within their new text (Research and Practice in Physical Education), Tannehill et al. (2013) suggested that physical education teachers ought to engage in action research to improve upon the experiences of their students. Though the attention given to action research was minimal within their text, attention was there nonetheless. More promising, perhaps, would be O’Sullivan and MacPhail’s (2010) recent text, Young People’s Voices in Physical Education and Youth Sport; it includes compelling examples of action research in (teacher) practice. Most notably within it would be Enright and O’Sullivan’s (2010b) participatory action

31656_Clausen-black.indd 62

20-06-11 13:19



Looking Back and Looking Forward 63

research projects, presented as pedagogies of possibility. Lastly, Ovens and Fletcher’s (2014) text (Self-Study in Physical Education Teacher Education: Exploring the Interplay of Practice and Scholarship) includes an important chapter from Tinning (2014), whom I see as a pioneering influence on the important foundational place of critical pedagogy in participatory action research. Though Tinning (2014, 157) might fear that action research may “have run out of steam in the academy,” there is plenty of space for physical education teachers (as graduate students or simply as inquiry-minded pedagogues) to continue with the emerging tradition. If action research is to be embraced by p e t e professors, students, and graduates, then pete faculty will need to play an important role. As it is, only those p e t e faculty who recognize action research’s potential will introduce its possibilities to their students. It is hit-andmiss. pete faculty looking for ideas for implementation may be well served to look for education colleagues outside of physical education who are finding suitable spaces and places for action research in their own programs. I think that all course-based graduate programs for in-service physical education teachers ought to require a research experience of some sort. Moreover, given that most, if not all, part-time graduate students are also full-time teachers, engaging in in-the-school action research is both pragmatic and authentic. It seems to me that action research (and, perhaps, also self-study) provides the greatest potential for these sorts of physical education teachers–graduate students. Mostly, though, I think a network is needed. Certainly, academic or professional conferences provide locations for networking to occur. But in my experience, cohort-driven med programs have enabled me to work with networks of like-minded physical education teachers–as researchers across the province (and country). Physical education faculty at other universities might do the same (I understand that similar cohorts exist at both the University of British Columbia and u of a; there may be others). I am one of many physical education professors in the country. Some others have already engaged in action research initiatives (and, in some cases, led the way for me). I hope to see others increasingly involved in the future. The path is not yet made. And as my good friend and colleague Dr Joanne Tompkins likes to remind me, “we make the road by walking it.”

31656_Clausen-black.indd 63

20-06-11 13:19

31656_Clausen-black.indd 64

20-06-11 13:19

GBR

Casey et al., 2015

Journal of Teaching in Physical Education

Educational G B R Action Research

Casey et al., 2009

GBR

NZL

Bowes and Tinning, 2015

Asia-Pacific Journal of Health, Sport & pe Casey and European Dyson, 2009 Physical Education Review

BE L Teaching and Teacher Education

Aelterman et al., 2013

Data sources

university research- interviews, observations (­ongoing field notes), written ers (n = 2), p e reflections (individual and teachers group) evaluations of skill (teacher 1 university and students), field journals, researcher, 1 p e teacher, 1 teaching ­interviews, reflections assistant, 3 classes of elementary students university research- document analysis, non-­ participant observations, ers (n = 2), 1 teacher, elemen- ­post-teaching reflective analysis, questionnaires, reflective tary students ­journals, student interviews (n = 51) university research- Cooperative Learning Validation Tool (clvt), field notes, observaers (n = 2), tions, post-lesson reflections, 1 teacher teacher interviews

university research- appreciation questionnaires, focus groups ers (n = 6), p e teachers (n = 35)

Country Participants

Publication

Authors

To report on the pedagogical changes experienced as a teacher engaged in an action research project whereby an indirect, developmentally appropriate, and child-centred approach to teaching was implemented To explore model fidelity in the use of the Cooperative Learning model in pe

To investigate 35 pe teachers’ appreciation of a continuous professional development (c p d) training on need-supportive teaching embedded in Self-Determination Theory, using qualitative and quantitative methods To examine a professional development and learning intervention that sought to improve teachers’ understandings of, and capacities to teach, critical evaluation in senior school pe To explore the use of action research as a framework to investigate cooperative learning and tactical games as instructional models in p e

Aim

( i n c l u d i n g pa rt i c i pa n t s , d ata   s o u r c e s , a i m )

a p p e n d i x : p h y s i c a l e d u c at i o n / a c t i o n r e s e a r c h p u b l i c at i o n s

31656_Clausen-black.indd 65

20-06-11 13:19

Physical Education and Sport Pedagogy

GBR

The Physical Educator

Couturier et al., 2007

CurtnerJournal of Smith, 2007 Teaching in Physical Education Enright and European O’Sullivan, Physical Education 2010 Review

The Physical Educator

Couturier et al., 2005

I RL

USA

USA

USA

Cluphf and ichper-sd U S A Vogler, 2010 Journal of Research

Cassady et al., 2004

To investigate how female students feel about evaluating and being evaluated in dance and, secondly, to devise a range of evaluation tasks that enable students to evaluate with confidence and to use the information to improve their performance audio recordings, email response To analyze the nature and effectiveness of a 1 university ­collaborative lesson planning experience by to questions (7-month followresearcher, pe up), field notes, reflection inter- 4 elementary pe teachers teachers (n = 4) views, systematic observation, video recordings student surveys To introduce and investigate the results when university faculty and teachers work together to design, ­researchers (n = 3), administer, and analyze a student survey that pe teachers, would give voice to middle and high school ­secondary students ­student perspectives on p e (n ≈ 5,000) student surveys To introduce and investigate the results when university faculty and teachers work together to design, ­researchers (n = 3), administer, and analyze a student survey that pe teachers, would give voice to middle and high school ­secondary students ­student perspectives on p e (n ≈ 5,000) anonymous reflective question- To break new ground and examine the effects one university naire, critical incident reflective of a critically oriented 6-week methods course researcher, pete sheets, success/non-success criti- and a 9-week early field experience on one class students (n = 24) of 24 pre-service classroom teachers (p c t ) cal incident reflective sheets university research- field notes, individual and group To work with 41 15–19-year-old female interviews ­students to understand and transform their ers (n = 2), ­self-identified barriers to pe engagement and s­ econdary students physical activity participation (all female, n = 41)

university research- interviews, questionnaires ers (n = 2), 2 groups of ­secondary students (n = 35)

31656_Clausen-black.indd 66

20-06-11 13:19

photovoice, poster-making, scrapbooking, student-led ­discussions, student research projects field notes (observations), focus group interviews, media ­consumption logs

focus groups, surveys university ­researchers (n = 2), secondary students (all female) semi-structured interviews, university ­researchers (n = 2), surveys tutors (n = 5), pete students (n = 250) individual interviews, university ­researchers (n = 2), ­observations and field notes, quizzes, surveys pete students (n = 27)

USA

USA

AUS

RUS

Fisette, 2011 Women in Sport and Physical Activity Journal

Sport, Education and Society

Research in Learning Technology

Fisette and Walton, 2014

Franklin and Smith, 2015

Glotova and Sport, Hastie, 2014 Education and Society

university ­researchers (n = 2), secondary students (all female, n = 41) 1 university researcher, ­secondary students (all female; n = 7)

I RL

Enright and O’Sullivan, 2012b

Sport, Education and Society

field notes, focus groups, semiuniversity ­researchers (n = 2), structured interviews, studentsecondary students led poster design sessions (all female, n = 41)

IR L Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport

Data sources

Enright and O’Sullivan, 2012a

Country Participants

Publication

Authors

To engage high school female students in ­collaborative activist research to explore how they make meaning of their mediated identities, how they translate these identities to their embodied sense of self, and how that influences their schooling experiences To create an educational context in pe to empower 7 high school female students by ­giving them the opportunity to design, ­implement, and complete an action research project of their interest To investigate whether incorporating mobile technologies such as iPads to access online rubrics within the Blackboard environment would enhance and simplify the assessment process To introduce sport education to students in a Russian pe pedagogical college and to track their understanding of the model through a series of learning experiences

To understand what happens when pe teachers engage with students to challenge formal p e curricular boundaries and connect with ­students’ physical culture (and to determine the benefits and the challenges associated with engaging in this sort of practical activism) To critique the use of participatory methods as a means of producing different knowledge and producing knowledge differently with students

Aim

31656_Clausen-black.indd 67

20-06-11 13:19

immediate reflections, student interviews, teacher educator’s self-reflections

1 university researcher, pete students (n = 18)

1 university researcher, 1 school teacher, 13 elementary schools, ­parents/guardians university ­researchers (n = 3), pete students (n = 72)

G BR

U SA

CAN

G BR

Goodyear et Sport, al., 2014 Education and Society

Physical Education and Sport Pedagogy

Physical & Health Education Journal

GubacsCollins, 2007

Halas and Sander, 2003

Jarrett et al., European 2014 Journal of Adapted Physical Activity

field notes, observations, postsession reflections (whole-class and individual), video recordings, whole-group discussions

parent surveys

discussions on social media, university ­researchers (n = 2), field journal, interviews, pe teachers (n = 6) ­professional learning meetings, teacher ­observations, teacher reflections, verification tools discussions, Facebook export university ­researchers (n = 3), data application, teacher pe teachers (n = 5), ­interviews, Twitonomy ­application (Twitter) 1 facilitator

G BR

Physical Education and Sport Pedagogy

Goodyear and Casey, 2015

To focus on pre-service pe teachers’ and sports coaches’ considerations of using Teaching Games for Understanding (tgfu) to teach games

To explore how social media operate as a communicative space external to the physical site of an emerging community of practice (cop) that supported teachers’ professional learning and their subsequent longer-term changing practice To introduce the methods, selected findings, and discussion of an action research project on implementing a tactical approach to teaching tennis in a pre-service teacher education setting. Second, to investigate pe majors’ and their teacher educators’ perceptions regarding the implementation of a tactical games approach in an 8-week tennis class. To investigate parental responses to current assessment, evaluation, and reporting practices

To explore how communities of practice emerge, develop, and support innovation that results in pedagogical change

31656_Clausen-black.indd 68

20-06-11 13:19

U SA

U SA

McNeill and ichper-sd Fry, 2012 Journal of Research

Teaching Elementary Physical Education

Qualitative Research in Sport, Exercise and Health

Mohr et al., 2003

Næss et al, 2014

NOR

ES P

Sport, Education and Society

documentary analysis (of the portfolio of learning material developed by students), field notes, unit meta-assessment conclusions (made by every student) e-portfolios, emails, focus group university ­researchers (n = 2), interviews, instant messages, surveys pete students (n = 33) student surveys, student 1 university ­teacher’s reflections researcher, 1 p e teacher (cooperating teacher), 1 pe t e student (­student teacher) in-depth interviews, participant university ­researchers (n = 3), observations secondary students

To analyze students’ response to a running ­program based on experiential learning

To determine what students and pe teachers like most and least about sport education

To understand the impact of vodcasts (video broadcasts) on student learning

To reveal some lessons learned through action research by a teacher educator as she sought to apply alternative, democratic assessment practices in a pete program

To understand activity preferences of sixth- and seventh-grade students as they sought to modify curriculum for enhancing student engagement

questionnaires

Lorente and Kirk, 2013

Aim

Data sources

1 university researcher, pe teachers, ­elementary/ secondary students (n = 701) university ­researchers (n = 2), pete students

USA

The Physical Educator

Kahan, 2012

Country Participants

Publication

Authors

31656_Clausen-black.indd 69

20-06-11 13:19

Sport, Education and Society

O’Connor and Alfrey, 2015

Robinson et al., 2014

Canadian Journal of Action Research

European Physical Education Review Ovens, 2004 Journal of Physical Education New Zealand Robinson, Canadian 2013 Journal of Action Research

O’Leary et al., 2015

Asian Journal of Exercise & Sports Science

Nash, 2009

university ­researchers (n = 2), pe teachers (n = 4), elementary students 1 university ­professor, p e t e ­students (n = 3)

AU S

1 university researcher, p e teachers (n = 3), secondary students (n = 13) university ­researchers (n = 3), elementary and secondary students

CA N

CA N

1 university researcher, p e t e students (n = 12)

NZL

GBR

1 university researcher, ­university staff, pete students

AU S

To analyze 12 final-year pete students’ ­participation in an alternative practicum ­structured around peer coaching and action research To focus on improving pe for adolescent female students.

To examine the implementation of a schoolbased active transportation education program (Making Tracks)

focused writing, interviews, observations

group discussions, surveys

field observations, follow-up focus group interviews, student questionnaires

critical friend observations, ­student comment cards, reflective journals

field notes, semi-structured interviews, student artefacts

To report on research that explores the ­experiences of pre-service teachers who participated in an innovative pe elective (designed to develop confident primary generalist classroom teachers capable of implementing high quality pe lessons) To present a way of framing health and pe that helps to shift the focus from the individual as autonomous decision-maker and goes beyond sport and fitness testing as the main contexts for learning To explore three undergraduate students’ use of jigsaw learning while teaching gymnastics during a secondary school placement

anecdotal evidence from ­university staff, focus group interviews, pre-service teacher surveys, weekly journal entries

31656_Clausen-black.indd 70

20-06-11 13:19

Physical & Health Education Journal

Asia-Pacific Journal of Health, Sport & Physical Education Journal of School Health

Robinson and Melnychuk, 2012

Severinsen, 2014

Thompson et al., 2015

Publication

Authors

field notes, reflective journals one university researcher, ­elementary ­students (n = 27), parents/ guardians observations, p e schedules university ­researchers (n = 4), pe teachers (n = 33), 20 ­elementary schools

NZL

To evaluate changes in pe among 5th-grade classes following participatory action r­ esearch efforts to improve pe–quantity and policy ­compliance that focused on publicly disclosing p e data

To more fully understand how pre-service teachers, their mentor teachers, and teacher educators recognize and experience disconnects between university coursework and in-the-field experiences To explore teaching personal and social ­responsibility in p e in a junior school setting

interviews, online ­questionnaires, student focus groups, teacher online interviews

university ­researchers (n = 2), pe teachers, p e t e students

CA N

USA

Aim

Data sources

Country Participants



Looking Back and Looking Forward 71 references

Aelterman, Nathalie, Maarten Vansteenkiste, Hilde Van Keer, Jotie De Meyer, Lynn Van den Berghe, and Leen Haerens. 2013. “Development and Evaluation of a Training on Need-Supportive Teaching in Physical Education: Qualitative and Quantitative Findings.” Teaching and Teacher Education 29(1), 64–75. Almond, Len. 1986. “Asking Teachers to Research.” In Rethinking Games Teaching, edited by Rod Thorpe, David Bunker, and Len Almond, 35–44. Loughborough, UK: University of Loughborough. Armour, Kathleen, and Doune Macdonald, eds. 2012. Research Methods in Physical Education and Youth Sport. New York, ny: Routledge. Bain, Linda L. 1990. “A Critical Analysis of the Hidden Curriculum in Physical Education.” In Curriculum and Culture: Critical Issues in the Contemporary Crisis, 19–34. Bristol, UK: Falmer. Bowes, Margot, and Richard Tinning. 2015. “Productive Pedagogies and Teachers’ Professional Learning in Physical Education.” Asia-Pacific Journal of Health, Sport and Physical Education 6(1), 93–109. Carr, Wilfred, and Stephen Kemmis. 1986. Becoming Critical: Education, Knowledge and Action Research. New York, ny: RoutledgeFalmer. Carson, Terrance R. 1990. “What Kind of Knowing Is Critical Action Research?” Theory into Practice 29(3), 167–73. Carson, Terrance R., and Dennis J. Sumara, eds. 1997. Action Research as a Living Practice. New York, n y: Peter Lang. Casey, Ashley, and Ben Dyson. 2009. “The Implementation of ModelsBased Practice in Physical Education through Action Research.” European Physical Education Review 15(2), 175–99. Casey, Ashley, Ben Dyson, and Anne Campbell. 2009. “Action Research in Physical Education: Focusing beyond Myself through Cooperative Learning.” Educational Action Research 17(3), 407–23. Casey, Ashley, Victoria Goodyear, and Ben Dyson. 2015. “Model Fidelity and Students’ Responses to an Authenticated Unit of Cooperative Learning.” Journal of Teaching in Physical Education 34(4), 642–60. Cassady, Helen, Gill Clarke, and Ann-Marie Latham. 2004. “Experiencing Evaluation: A Case Study of Girls’ Dance.” Physical Education and Sport Pedagogy 9(1), 23–36. Cluphf, David, and William E. Vogel. 2010. “Collaborative Lesson Planning in Physical Education: A Case Study.” ichper-sd Journal of Research 3(2), 86–94.

31656_Clausen-black.indd 71

20-06-11 13:19

72

Daniel B. Robinson

Couturier, Lynn E., Steveda Chepko, and Mary Ann Coughin. 2005. “Student Voices – What Middle and High School Students Have to Say about Physical Education.” Physical Educator 62(4), 170–8. – 2007. “Whose Gym is it? Gendered Perspectives on Middle and Secondary School Physical Education.” Physical Educator 64(3), 152–9. Creswell, John W. 2005. Educational Research: Planning, Conducting, and Evaluating Quantitative ad Qualitative Research (2nd ed.). Upper Saddle River, n j: Pearson Education. Curtner-Smith, Matthew D. 2002. “Methodological Issues in Research.” In The Sociology of Sport and Physical Education: An Introductory Reader, edited by Anthony Laker, 36–57. New York, ny: RoutledgeFalmer. – 2007. “The Impact of a Critically Oriented Physical Education Teacher Education Course on Preservice Classroom Teachers.” Journal of Teaching in Physical Education 26(1), 35–56. Enright, Eimear, and Mary O’Sullivan. 2010a. “‘Can I do it in my Pyjamas?’ Negotiating a Physical Education Curriculum with Teenage Girls.” European Physical Education Review 16(3), 203–22. – 2010b. “‘Carving a New Order of Experience’ with Young People in Physical Education: Participatory Action Research as a Pedagogy of Possibility.” In Young People’s Voices in Physical Education and Youth Sport, edited by Mary O’Sullivan and Ann MacPhail, 163–85. London, UK: Routledge. – 2012a. “Physical Education ‘In all Sorts of Corners.’” Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport 83(2), 255–67. – 2012b. “‘Producing Different Knowledge and Producing Knowledge Differently’: Rethinking Physical Education Research and Practice through Participatory Visual Methods.” Sport, Education and Society 17(1), 35–55. Erickson, Frederick, and Jeffrey Schultz. 1992. “Students’ Experiences of the Curriculum.” In Handbook of Research on Curriculum, edited by Philip Wesley Jackson, 465–95. New York, ny: Macmillan. Fernández-Balboa, Juan-Miguel. 1998. “The Practice of Critical Pedagogy: Critical Self-Reflection as Praxis.” Teaching Education 9(2), 47–53. Fisette, Jennifer L. 2011. “Negotiating Power within High School Girls’ Exploratory Projects in Physical Education.” Women in Sport and Physical Activity Journal 20(1), 73–90. Fisette, Jennifer L., and Theresa A Walton. 2014. “‘If You Really Knew Me’… I Am Empowered through Action.” Sport, Education and Society 19(2), 131–52.

31656_Clausen-black.indd 72

20-06-11 13:19



Looking Back and Looking Forward 73

Franklin, Roslyn M., and Jubilee Smith. 2015. “Practical Assessments on the Run – iPads as an Effective Mobile and Paperless Tool in Physical Education and Teaching.” Research in Learning Technology 23(1), 1–19. Glotova, Olga Nikolaevna, and Peter Andrew Hastie. 2014. “Learning to Teach Sport Education in Russia: Factors Affecting Model Understanding and Intentions to Teach.” Sport, Education and Society 19(8), 1072–88. Goodyear, Victoria A., and Ashley Casey. 2015. “Innovation with Change: Developing a Community of Practice to Help Teachers Move beyond the ‘Honeymoon’ of Pedagogical Renovation.” Physical Education and Sport Pedagogy 20(2), 186–203. Goodyear, Victoria A., Ashley Casey, and David Kirk. 2014. “Tweet Me, Message Me, Like Me: Using Social Media to Facilitate Pedagogical Change within an Emerging Community of Practice.” Sport, Education and Society 19(7), 927–43. Gubacs-Collins, Klara. 2007. “Implementing a Tactical Approach through Action Research.” Physical Education and Sport Pedagogy 12(2), 105–26. Halas, Joannie, and Neil Sander. 2003. “Action Research as Responsible Practice: Parental Responses to Assessment, Evaluation, and Reporting Practices in Physical Education.” Physical and Health Education Journal 69(2), 12–17. Harvey, William. 2014. “Critical Approaches to Pedagogy.” In Teaching Physical Education Today: Canadian Perspectives, edited by Daniel B. Robinson and Lynn Randall, 191–206. Toronto, on: Thompson Educational Publishing. Hastie, Peter A. 1997. “Factors Affecting the Creation of a New Ecology in a Boys-Only Physical Education Class at a Military School.” Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport 68(1), 62–73. Herr, Kathryn, and Gary L. Anderson. 2005. The Action Research Dissertation: A Guide for Students and Faculty. Thousand Oaks, c a : Sage. Jarrett, Kendall, Serge Eloi, and Stephen Harvey. 2014. “Teaching Games for Understanding (tg fu ) as a Positive and Versatile Approach to Teaching Adapted Games.” European Journal of Adapted Physical Activity 7(1), 6–20. Kahan, David. 2013. “Here Is What Interests Us! Students’ Reconceived Physical Education Activity Offerings in an Inner-City Middle School.” Physical Educator 70(3), 243–61.

31656_Clausen-black.indd 73

20-06-11 13:19

74

Daniel B. Robinson

Kemmis, Stephen, and Robin McTaggart, eds. 1988. The Action Research Planner. Victoria, Australia: Deakin University Press. Kirk, David, and Richard Tinning, eds. 1990. Curriculum and Culture: Critical Issues the Contemporary Crisis. Bristol, UK: Falmer. Lorente, Eloisa, and David Kirk. 2013. “Alternative Democratic Assessment in pete: An Action-Research Study Exploring Risks, Challenges and Solutions.” Sport, Education and Society 18(1), 77–96. McNeill, Michael C., and Joan M. Fry. 2012. “The Value of ic t from a Learning-Game-Playing Perspective.” ichper-sd Journal of Research 7(2), 45–51. Martinek, Thomas J., and Karen Butt. 1988. “An Application of an Action Research Model for Changing Instructional Practice.” Journal of Teaching in Physical Education 7(3): 214–20. Mohr, Derek J., Matt Haley, and Clay F. Mohr. 2003. “Action Research: The Daily Search for What Works.” Teaching Elementary Physical Education 14(6), 31–5. Næss, Harald Solhaug, Reidar Säfvenbom, and Øyvind Førland Standal. 2014. “Running with Dewey: Is it Possible to Learn to Enjoy Running in High School Physical Education?” Qualitative Research in Sport, Exercise and Health 6(2), 301–15. Nash, Melanie. 2009. “Using the Idea of ‘Communities of Practice’ and t gfu to Develop Physical Education Pedagogy among Primary Generalist Pre-Service Teachers.” Asian Journal of Exercise and Sports Science 6(1), 1–7. O’Connor, Justen, and Laura Alfrey. 2015. “Activating the Curriculum: a Socio-Ecological Action Research Frame for Health and Physical Education.” Sport, Education and Society 20(6), 691–701. O’Leary, Nick, Nicole Wattison, Toni Edwards, and Kate Bryan. 2015. “Closing the Theory-Practice Gap: Physical Education Students’ Use of Jigsaw Learning in Secondary School.” European Physical Education Review 21(2), 176–94. O’Sullivan, Mary, and Ann MacPhail. 2010. Young People’s Voices in Physical Education and Youth Sport. London, UK: Routledge. Ovens, Alan. 2004. “Using Peer Coaching and Action Research to Structure the Practicum: An Analysis of Student Teacher Perceptions.” Journal of Physical Education New Zealand 37(1), 45–60. Ovens, Alan, and Tim Fletcher, eds. 2014. Self-Study in Physical Education Teacher Education: Exploring the Interplay of Practice and Scholarship. New York, n y: Springer.

31656_Clausen-black.indd 74

20-06-11 13:19



Looking Back and Looking Forward 75

Robinson, Daniel B. 2013. “Getting Girls in the Game: Action Research in the Gymnasium.” Canadian Journal of Action Research 14(3), 3–28. Robinson, Daniel B., Andrew Foran, and Ingrid Robinson. 2014. “Making Tracks 1.0: Action Researching an Active Transportation Education Program.” Canadian Journal of Action Research 15(1), 21–40. Robinson, Daniel, and Nancy Melnychuk. 2012. “Physical Education Knowledge Sharing: An Action Research Project for Teacher Educators and Mentor Teachers.” Physical and Health Education Journal 77(4), 6–12. Robinson, Daniel B., and Lynn Randall, eds. 2016. Social Justice in Physical Education: Critical Reflections and Pedagogies for Change. Toronto, on : Canadian Scholars’ Press. Rossi, Anthony, and Wah Kiat Tan. 2012. “Action Research in Physical Education: Cycles, Not Circles!” In Research Methods in Physical Education and Youth Sport, edited by Kathleen Armour and Doune Macdonald, 250–62. New York, n y: Routledge. Ruiz, Beatriz Muros, and Juan-Miguel Fernández-Balboa. 2005. “Physical Education Teacher Educators’ Personal Perspectives Regarding Their Practice of Critical Pedagogy.” Journal of Teaching in Physical Education 24(3), 243–64. Severinsen, Graeme. 2014. “Teaching Personal and Social Responsibility to Juniors through Physical Education.” Asia-Pacific Journal of Health, Sport and Physical Education 5(1), 83–100. Sparkes, Andrew C., ed. 1992. Research in Physical Education and Sport: Exploring Alternative Visions. New York, ny: RoutledgeFalmer. Sparkes, Andrew C. 1994. “Research Paradigms in Physical Education: Some Brief Comments on Differences That Make a Difference.” British Journal of Physical Education Research 14, 11–16. Stringer, Ernie. 2004. Action Research in Education. Upper Saddle River, nj : Pearson. Tannehill, Deborah, Ann MacPhail, Ger Halbert, and Frances Murphy. 2013. Research and Practice in Physical Education. New York, ny: Routledge. Thompson, Hannah R., Eric Vittinghoff, Jennifer K. Linchey, and Kristine A. Madsen. 2015. “Public Disclosure to Improve Physical Education in an Urban School District: Results from a 2-Year Quasi-Experimental Study.” Journal of School Health 85(9), 604–10. Tinning, Richard. 1992. “Action Research as Epistemology and Practice: Towards Transformative Educational Practice in Physical Education.”

31656_Clausen-black.indd 75

20-06-11 13:19

76

Daniel B. Robinson

In Research in Physical Education and Sport: Exploring Alternative Visions, edited by Andrew C. Sparkes, 188–209. New York, ny: RoutledgeFalmer. – 2014. “Reading Self-Study in/for Physical Education: Revisiting the Zeitgeist of Reflection.” In Self-Study in Physical Education Teacher Education: Exploring the Interplay of Practice and Scholarship, edited by Alan Ovens and Tim Fletcher, 153–68. New York, ny: Springer. Tinning, Richard, Doune Macdonald, Karen Tregenza, and John Boustead. 1996. “Action Research and the Professional Development of Teachers in the Health and Physical Education Field: The Australian npdp Experience.” Educational Action Research 4(3), 389–405.

31656_Clausen-black.indd 76

20-06-11 13:19

4 Roots and Wings The Teacher Action Research Movement in Manitoba Francine Morin

To be effective teachers in today’s complex educational environments, we must remain abreast of the current research in education, new approaches to curriculum, teaching, and learning, as well as the educational theories that underpin them. This knowledge acquired by teachers through their initial teacher education programs, ongoing formal and informal professional development, advanced studies, reading, and ongoing dialogue with colleagues throughout their careers constitutes the scientific basis for the art of teaching. Like any field of scholarship, this body of educational knowledge is organic; it is living, growing, and changing all the time. It is always subject to testing in classrooms and subsequent revision, and educators remain open to new findings and discoveries based on the inquiry process. By nature then, teaching (and other forms of educational practice) is  both an art and a social science; the interweaving of these two ­complementary and natural dimensions of teaching is most evident and profound when teachers take on the dispositions and skills to be action researchers. This chapter presents a story of the teacher action research movement in Manitoba, exploring factors that influenced its evolution and role in teacher learning and professional development within the Faculty of Education, University of Manitoba, and our community of practising educators. Pivotal events are shared, such as our initial experience in 1993 piloting a school-university partnership in the form of a Master of Education Cohort Program focused on teacher action

31656_Clausen-black.indd 77

20-06-11 13:19

78

Francine Morin

research and later engaging in a “paradigm war” with professors when aiming to gain support and approval for introducing action research as a permanent graduate course offering. Our story is documented in graduate students’ action research theses and dissertations, facultyfield research partnerships, professional development projects, local scholarly forums, and the Manitoba Education Research Network’s newly established Teacher Research Groups. The future of action research in Manitoba is further evidenced by recent undergraduate teacher education program reform, which includes a new elective course to prepare teacher candidates to do self-selected teacher inquiries connected to their school practicum experiences. t h e f i r s t wav e o f t e a c h e r a c t i o n r e s e a r c h

The movement among Manitoba teachers to undertake action research began in 1993 with a pilot project initiated by Judith Newman soon after she was appointed dean of the Faculty of Education at the University of Manitoba. A cohort-based graduate program was designed and implemented in partnership with a local school division. This cohort consisted of a diverse group of educators who pursued a master of education program of study together focusing on inquiry-based teaching and learning, which trialed a new graduate course – Action Research: Educating as Inquiry. Within this first wave of teacher research, Newman guided participants in the cohort to problematize their practice; they identified critical incidences and issues, critically reflected on them, and interrogated them in more political ways. She challenged them with scholarly readings that served as catalysts for digging deeper, making connections, and interpreting their experiences. At the end of the program, participants wrote about the transformations they experienced as a result of engaging in action research. The outcomes of the cohort’s learning journey were made community property in a book entitled Tensions of Teaching: Beyond Tips to Critical Reflection (Newman 1998). As indicated by the title, the work presents an anthology of twelve essays, six written by Manitoba cohort participants, who reflect on the tensions of teaching and demonstrate the power of action research and critical reflection to provoke educational change, shift beliefs, and reform practice. Newman concludes that the action research process and the opportunity to write about it allowed participants to discover the relationship between professional action, decision-making, and students’ learning and to understand this relationship in a much more sophisticated way.

31656_Clausen-black.indd 78

20-06-11 13:19



The Teacher Action Research Movement in Manitoba 79

Despite the success of this pilot project and the support it received from educators in the field, it created substantial tension among professors in the faculty, with several questioning the validity of the research approach that the graduate students had undertaken. The genre of action research that Newman emphasized within the pilot cohort was informed in large part by the work of Donald Schön (1983; 1987). Newman (1998, 8) worked from an interpretation of Schön’s ideas proposing that “inquiry occurs when the practitioner reflects while engaged in action and subsequently on action itself.” While most faculty members agreed that critical reflection on practice is an important element of the teacher research process, they argued that it is only part of the process. A large number of academics held the view that inquiry is only teacher research when the teacher identifies a problem and research question, researches and develops strategies to address the problem, tests the new strategies in practice, monitors and validates how those strategies work through appropriate data collection and analyses processes, and reports the findings publicly. Interestingly, these more traditional notions of research are also at least partially evident in Schön’s (1983, 68) concept of practitioner inquiry: “The practitioner allows himself to experience surprise, puzzlement, or confusion in a situation which he finds uncertain or unique. He reflects on the phenomenon before him, and on the prior understandings which have been implicit in his behaviour. He carries out an experiment which serves to generate both a new understanding of the phenomenon and a change in the situation.” During implementation, the pilot project caused much controversy among tenured professors in our faculty, and a rift developed between a small group of professors, mostly in the curriculum department, who supported the teacher research movement and a larger group of others who questioned its validity as a legitimate paradigm to be advanced in our graduate programs. In 1996, Judith Newman resigned her decanal position at the University of Manitoba, and the teacher action research movement was stalled. introducing an action research course: from controversy to consensus

The vast majority of graduate students enrolled in education programs at the masters and doctoral levels at the University of Manitoba are practitioners working full-time in a variety of educational contexts. After our pilot program, more and more practitioners were admitted

31656_Clausen-black.indd 79

20-06-11 13:19

80

Francine Morin

into our regular campus-based graduate programs as part-time students with thesis or dissertation interests and research questions that could only be addressed through action research practices. Educators in the field were becoming more aware of the teacher action research movement, the writings of scholars like Cochran-Smith and Lytle (1993; 1998, vol. 1), Gallas (1993; 1997), and Miller (1990), and the potential this approach to research afforded for implementing studies that held immediacy, meaning, and relevancy for them. For about the next five years, a small group of professors already engaged in self-studies around their university teaching practices and/ or collaborative action research projects with field-based partners aimed to continue the work of Judith Newman by taking on these new graduate students as advisees. Without the support of a transformational leader, this period was labour-intensive and risky for both students and their professor-advisors. Support for these students had to be tackled through independent studies and individual mentoring outside of formal courses because our advanced research course offerings were limited to traditional qualitative and quantitative methodologies. Advisors had to be very cautious when establishing examining committees and sought out qualified colleagues inside and outside of the faculty to serve who were knowledgeable about teacher action research. Professors worked closely and vigilantly with students to ensure that ethics applications were meticulously prepared and approvals for their studies secured. In the late 1990s and into the new millennium, more action research theses and dissertations were successfully defended and published, and a second wave of teacher action research emerged out of the work of this small but growing group of action researcher–professors and their graduate students. To respond to the mounting needs of graduate students and advisors, it became apparent that we needed to pry open our research course offerings to make room for an alternative methodology course that would prepare students for this significant mode of inquiry – one that would target an advanced study of action research approaches in education. The notion of launching such a course caused quite a stir within our faculty – in fact, more controversy than any other new course introduction. Action research was viewed as threatening to those who resisted possibilities other than mainstream qualitative or quantitative theses or dissertations; many senior professors continued to question the paradigm as a permissible form of academic inquiry. They expressed a discomfort with the type of knowledge that action

31656_Clausen-black.indd 80

20-06-11 13:19



The Teacher Action Research Movement in Manitoba 81

research generates – practical knowledge – and argued that the production of formal knowledge is what is required of students aiming to fulfill the research requirements for graduate degrees at the University of Manitoba. We realized that gaining enough support among professors in the faculty to move an action research course through the university’s approval process as a new, permanent offering would be a long and arduous undertaking. A small group of interested professors started the task by working collaboratively to draft the curriculum for a new course to be called Action Research in Education. The course was piloted three times as a special topic advanced research course and further refined by the instructors after each of these iterations. We then held a forum for all interested faculty members who questioned the initiative. We presented the course outline and then set out to define and defend the uniqueness of action research, explain what it has to offer that traditional paradigms do not, and clear up any misunderstandings. We also listened to the concerns of our colleagues and invited their comments and feedback. We held yet another large group forum with much more rigorous, scholarly debate and dialogue. Through an ongoing process of inclusion, participation, and listening and responding to our colleagues, we managed to reduce the number of objections to the new course, which is another way, we learned, to think about reaching consensus in the academy. Action Research in Education was approved in-house by the Faculty of Education’s Graduate Studies Committee on 14 October 2004 and the next day more wholly by Faculty Council. Our small course development working group felt a sense of elation and relief. We had successfully convinced our colleagues that action research addresses the problematic disconnect between conventional research paradigms and the world of educational practitioners and that graduate students could be prepared to inquire rigorously and systematically into that world. Furthermore, we convinced concerned professors that action research was not taking over but rather taking its place within “a diverse ecology of inquiry” (Bradbury 2015, 4) and that collectively, we must both take pride in and accept the responsibility of offering a richer range of research courses. The new course proposal was successfully passed by the Council of the Faculty of Graduate Studies on 16 November 2004, and finally the Department of Curriculum, Teaching and Learning gained Senate approval on 6 April 2005 to offer the course during the 2005–06

31656_Clausen-black.indd 81

20-06-11 13:19

82

Francine Morin

academic year. The next year, e d u b 7600 Action Research in Education eventually made its inaugural appearance as a permanent course listing in the university’s 2006­­–07 academic calendar. The entry for the course was and remains as “a study of the theory and practice of action and participatory action research in education including models, principles and practices, criteria for assessing quality, ethics, and modes of representation” (University of Manitoba 2018, 162). For more than a decade now, multiple sections of this action research course have been offered in the Faculty of Education. It is a research course in high demand and one that is regularly over-subscribed because it attracts graduate students not only from education but also from other disciplines such as social work, nursing, peace and conflict studies, community health, kinesiology, and music. g r a d u at e s t u d e n t s ’ a c t i o n r e s e a r c h approaches and practices

Some of the teacher action research studies conducted by my graduate students in curriculum studies and, more specifically, arts education are akin to those envisioned by Lawrence Stenhouse, who viewed teaching and research much like a double helix as two processes that are inextricably linked. In his classic book An Introduction to Curriculum Research and Development, Stenhouse (1975) encouraged teachers to reflect critically and systematically on their practice as a form of curriculum theorizing. He strongly believed that teachers were the best judge of the impact of their practice and held an image of teachers as both intellectuals and capable researchers. In viewing teachers as central actors in generating and advancing curriculum knowledge, Stenhouse urged teachers to accept the responsibility of examining their own practices and provoked conventional researchers to join practitioners in their efforts to do so. His notion of teacher research as an action science that informs the art of curriculum practice was extended and later defined by John Elliott (1991, 69) as “the study of a social situation with a view to improving the quality of action within it.” To illustrate this approach to teacher action research, elements of a trio of studies focusing on improving music education practices is offered. The blueprints designed for these theses employ steps common to teacher research: identifying an aspect of practice for improvement; researching a new way forward; implementing and monitoring new pedagogies; analyzing and interpreting data sets; and discarding old

31656_Clausen-black.indd 82

20-06-11 13:19



The Teacher Action Research Movement in Manitoba 83

practices while developing new ones. The practices targeted for improvement demonstrate the music teachers’ commitments to providing their students with quality learning experiences. Fransen (1998) tackled the problem of undertaking assessing for/of/as learning in elementary music programs, a challenge many music specialists face because of high student numbers and limited contact time. Ferley (2006) wanted to increase the time spent on active music making and learning with the junior high students in her band program, so she set out to discover strategies that would lead to more effective and efficient rehearsals. Concerned that she had now reached a plateau in her artistic development as a choral educator, Antel (2010) searched for new ways of teaching her student-choristers that would escalate their choral singing to yet higher levels of performance. All three music teacher-researchers carefully reviewed the theory, pedagogical, and research literature related to their topics in order to imagine new pathways forward in their classrooms. They learned that the scholarly literature is there for a critical purpose – to be known, studied, interpreted, understood, and strategically applied to the problem. The development of promising action strategies, they realized, is not only an ethical process but a creative and inventive one as well. Action strategies embody the art of teaching, which is bound up in one’s ability to apply the most relevant and promising science to practice with real learners. These artful teachers synthesized what they had gleaned from authoritative sources and then drew upon that information to creatively address the problems delineated for their studies. The trio used a range of mixed methods to collect data in an effort to practise triangulation and monitor how their new action strategies were working. To develop an innovative set of choral teaching practices to test in her study, Antel (2010) first observed six local choral master–teachers working with their choirs and conducted followup interviews with them. She then combined the choral teaching strategies generated from an analysis of data gathered from the six experts with additional strategies that surfaced within the literature on successful choral pedagogy. Based on her observations, interviews, and literature research, Antel created a new choral teaching approach, which she implemented with her choirs for six months. Pre- and post-­ observations of Antel’s choral teaching-in-action were provided by the six expert choral music specialists. Overall, they offered constructive feedback and coaching, gauged improvements, and made suggestions for further professional and artistic growth.

31656_Clausen-black.indd 83

20-06-11 13:19

84

Francine Morin

New understandings about music teaching practices resulted for all three teacher-researchers. The study settings are thickly described so that music teachers working in similar contexts might also benefit from the insights gained. To illustrate, Fransen (1998) was surprised to find that even relatively young students were highly capable of articulating what they had learned in music during student-led conferences with parents. Her results further suggested that the use of portfolios is a beneficial, authentic form of music assessment that is manageable in the elementary school music context. In the junior high setting, Ferley’s (2006) new band rehearsal strategies detailed in the thesis resulted in an increase in the amount of instructional time she was able to devote to actively making music and teaching new concepts and skills. Given that her band students responded positively to the new pedagogies, Ferley continued to use them to guide and refine her future practice. Over the past decade, a trend toward more critically oriented inquiry has been noted among the graduate students coming into their advanced degree programs. Manitoba practitioners are troubled by and thinking more deeply about issues such as power, racism, diversity, democracy, environmental issues, peace, education for reconciliation, and poverty. They are questioning why educational institutions can be oppressive forces and examining how the practices implemented by educators can sometimes work against, rather than for, our most politically and economically vulnerable students. More and more, educators realize that teaching, learning, and leading can have constructive, benign, or even deconstructive outcomes on those they intend to help. The research interests reflected in the theses and dissertations produced by graduate students of late align best with the concept of critical action research defined early on by scholars like Kemmis and McTaggart (1988, 1), who state, “Action research is a form of collective self-reflective enquiry undertaken by participants in social situations in order to improve the rationality and justice of their own social or educational practices, as well as their understanding of these practices and the situations in which these practices are carried out.” Among the pool of graduate students I recently mentored, two adopted critical perspectives, and their work can be shared to illustrate this new direction. Both completed studies that aimed to use action research for social justice and humanistic ends. Smith’s (2014) award-winning dissertation was launched with one critical question: How could I as an educational leader in Manitoba improve educational outcomes for students who are the least privileged in society? Smith’s aims were to: a) identify the knowledge, skills, and dispositions

31656_Clausen-black.indd 84

20-06-11 13:19



The Teacher Action Research Movement in Manitoba 85

teacher leaders required to be agents of change in educational contexts; b) identify the learning processes that developed agency; and c) determine the impact of a co-constructed community on teachers who participated in the leadership development program. She created and facilitated a leadership development program with a cohort of nine Manitoba teacher leaders committed to social justice, one that would enhance their abilities to become catalysts for change in their own schools. A suite of qualitative data sources were used to capture the processes that influenced teacher leader development among the group. During the program, Smith trialed two instruments developed as part of her study – the Social Justice Teacher Leadership Self-Assessment (sjtlsa) and Peer Reflection (sj t l p r) tools, both intended to promote self-knowledge, reflection, and dialogue. A theory-of-practice is formulated that synthesizes the knowledge, skills, dispositions, and agency of teacher leaders for social justice. Furthermore, Smith identifies seven elements that promote critical reflection, agency, and transformative learning among teacher leaders and concludes with the presentation of a three-phase leadership development model. Hunter (2016) wanted to improve the education of Indigenous students enrolled at the inner-city urban alternative high school for adolescent mothers and/or mothers-to-be where he teaches. Seven adult students and one of his colleagues, an English language arts teacher, participated in the study. Hunter investigated the impact that critical mathematics and critical literacy pedagogy had on developing students’ critical consciousness (Freire 2000), which is a key component of transformative learning (Mezirow 1997). Hunter found that the cumulative effect of the critical curricular learning experiences that he and his teaching partner designed and implemented during the study indeed led to critical consciousness development and some transformative learning for students. His findings and those of Smith (2014) point to the importance of the professional development that is integrated within action research and the critical role it plays in improving teaching, learning, and leading for marginalized student groups. t h e a u t h o r ’ s pa rt i c i pat o r y a c t i o n research practices

I developed an inquiry stance from the dawn of my career, likely because I enrolled part-time in graduate studies at the same time that I began my career as a beginning arts specialist and classroom teacher, progressing through both my masters and doctoral programs while

31656_Clausen-black.indd 85

20-06-11 13:19

86

Francine Morin

teaching full-time and studying evenings, weekends, and summers. Since shifting into the academy, that teacher inquiry stance stayed with me and served to carry my university teaching practice forward as I continued to engage regularly in self-studies, alone and with colleagues (Morin 1995; 2000; 2004; Morin and Begoray 2002; Serebrin and Morin 2007). Action research has always been at the core of my professional identity and represents a significant branch of my scholarly work. The field of educational action research, however, offers a range of practices and approaches beyond self-study that can be used to address diverse educational problems and contexts. One such practice is participatory action research (par ), which is more large-scale, complex, and generally requires funding. par emphasizes collaborative partnerships between university researchers and their educational communities; it aims to generate knowledge that will be applicable to resolving locally identified problems and thereby offers direct benefits to stakeholder communities. In educational contexts, par is further characterized by a reform agenda; the inclusion of community partners and their voices, experiences, and understandings; mitigating and sharing power; and informing and reforming policy and practice. I turn now to highlight three of my own par projects as a way of revealing more of the bricolage of action research practices that are currently being explored in Manitoba. Navigating the terrain of leading change and improving arts education practice across an entire province presents unique challenges. Manitoba Education took a critical first step in the process by partnering with the University of Manitoba to conduct a study that offered educators an insightful and comprehensive profile of K-12 arts education in our schools, inclusive of dance, drama, music, and visual arts. More than half of all schools in Manitoba (n=420) and the large majority of our thirty-six public school divisions (n=29) participated in the study. In designing A Study of Arts Education in Manitoba Schools (Morin 2010) for our provincial government, I chaired a community-based research advisory committee consisting of the ministry’s arts education consultants and others representing arts education organizations, school superintendents, and the Manitoba Arts Council. I actively involved the committee in identifying themes for investigation, reviewing researcher-design data collection tools, and serving as a peer debriefing group for enriching data interpretation. Upon completion, I worked together with leaders in the arts education community to host a number of knowledge mobilization events that

31656_Clausen-black.indd 86

20-06-11 13:19



The Teacher Action Research Movement in Manitoba 87

engaged stakeholders in conversations about the research findings. We then held forums that focused on generating ways to improve arts education for all children in the province and planning for taking action at different levels. An even larger group of arts education partners is currently planning to repeat this study in collaboration with educational ministries across the Canadian prairies. Understanding the Impacts of an El Sistema–Inspired After-School Orchestral Program on Children and their Community is another example of a Manitoba community-based action research study that I facilitate along with leaders from our local symphony orchestra and two school divisions (Morin 2014; 2015). This multi-phase, longitudinal study began in 2012 and explores the role of music in teaching for social justice by examining: a) the impacts of participation in an intensive after-school orchestral program on the personal-social, academic, and musical development among children six to fourteen years old from low socio-economic backgrounds in three school sites; b) the impacts of the music program on family, community, and partnering institutions; and c) the pedagogical features and methods used in the program. The two school divisions partnered with the symphony to launch the after-school program for schoolchildren that uses music as a means for social transformation and is based upon the renowned El Sistema orchestral programs of Venezuela. The program leaders began by targeting string instruments (violin, viola, and cello) and have now added woodwinds and brass instruments. Now in year eight, the program operates five days per week for three hours a day throughout the school year at no cost to participants. Children study with lead music specialists, professional musicians, and other musical guests. The weekly schedule includes sectional rehearsals, full orchestra rehearsals, choir, and performances, as well as other arts and special activities. The young musicians perform at various concerts throughout the year for diverse audiences and purposes. In par, the collaborating researcher must take on a facilitator role, and relationship-building is paramount. In this project, I organize and lead meetings with institutional partners to discuss issues related to the research and discuss findings and program recommendations, and we make decisions together about next steps. These decisions guide the annual data collection cycles that are completed with the help of research assistants. We examine extensive data collected from the children participating in the program at all school sites. We undertake exit conversations and conduct assessments of children’s musical

31656_Clausen-black.indd 87

20-06-11 13:19

88

Francine Morin

development, self-concept, ethnic identity, emotional awareness, and sense of belonging. We observe patterns in the young musicians’ program and school attendance as well as track their achievement in mathematics and reading. We survey parents and hold focus groups with them. We hold focus groups with classroom teachers and teaching musicians and in-depth interviews with lead music specialists, school leaders, and institutional leaders. Our mixed-method par approach and the comprehensive music assessment tool designed are also intended to be models for others assessing the impacts of Sistema music programs in Canada and abroad. Since 2009, I have also been involved in a community-based action research partnership between the University of Manitoba and a large urban school division’s Professional Learning and Leadership Centre (p l l c ) (Collis, Falkenberg, and Morin 2013, vol. 6; Morin et al. 2017). The aim of this multi-phase project is to increase understanding of the processes of teacher induction and mentorship development. Furthermore, the objectives are to: a) provide sound, meaningful, and sufficiently reliable information that can be used to make decisions and recommendations about the programs offered by the p l l c and the impacts on teacher learning and change; and b) inform the agencies providing funds for the project. The p l l c induction programs are designed to provide quality professional learning support for both early service teachers and mentors across curriculum areas. Programs are grounded in research evidence supporting the notion that professional learning is complex and multi-faceted; there is no one ideal approach, but rather it is a combination of approaches that provides optimal conditions for professional growth. The p l l c ’s teacher induction and mentorship programs, therefore, aim to feature a combination of approaches. Formal individual and/or group mentoring are employed with emphasis on learning-focused conversations led by trained mentors. Job-embedded learning supported by release time for mentors and mentees is used to ground beginning teachers’ professional learning in daily classroom practice. These experiences are designed to enhance pedagogy in a range of curriculum-specific contexts, always with the purpose of improving student learning and achievement, particularly for more vulnerable groups of Indigenous children living in high-challenge circumstances within the inner city. Like the p l l c leaders, teachers in the program are actively engaged in inquiry-based action research cycles to improve practice, solve authentic problems, and plan next steps. Targeted professional development sessions supported by related resources and readings are

31656_Clausen-black.indd 88

20-06-11 13:19



The Teacher Action Research Movement in Manitoba 89

also part of a strategic mosaic of elements used to increase the impact of the program offerings. At the end of each program year, the program leaders and I examine extensive data sets collected from teacher subgroups participating in the programs. With the help of my research assistants, we hold focus groups, matrix interviews, and large-group debriefing sessions with both mentees and mentors. Learning conversations with mentors and mentees have been videotaped and analyzed. In-depth conversations are conducted with program staff. Existing program artifacts, such as action research and job-embedded learning reports completed by mentees and mentors, program planning and information documents, and meeting notes are analyzed. Classroom visitations and observational data are being undertaken. Online surveys and written questionnaires have been designed, administered, and analyzed with all teacher participants. This ongoing par directly informs the p l l c ’s work on professional development for teachers and serves to refine its division-wide programming. t h e m a n i t o b a e d u c at i o n r e s e a r c h n e t w o r k ’ s teacher research groups

The Manitoba Education Research Network (m e rn ), established in 2002, aims to improve education in schools through collaborative research partnerships and the support of Manitoba’s five faculties of education and education ministry. me rn provides opportunities for the dissemination of local research through its forums and seminars held on a regular basis each year and various publications, including a journal, occasional paper series, and monograph series. The network plays a critical role in Manitoba so that research results can be exchanged and relationships forged between university researchers, provincial education partner groups, and school divisions. The research produced among participants in the Manitoba network reflects a variety of research paradigms, but in recent years there has been more attention and support given specifically to teacher research, which has served to elevate its status and importance within Manitoba. For example, me r n partnered with the Manitoba Teachers’ Society (mts) in the fall of 2014 to host a provincial-level seminar on teacher action research featuring a keynote by prominent Canadian teacher research advocate Jim Parsons. A range of Manitoba action research projects at various stages of completion were highlighted; these researchers and other delegates engaged in an invigorating follow-up discussion with the guest, and all shared their perspectives and

31656_Clausen-black.indd 89

20-06-11 13:19

90

Francine Morin

experiences. At this seminar, a representative of the mts also promoted a new grants program – Reflective Professional Practice Grants, which encourages collaborative action research studies to be designed and implemented among small groups of educators with common inquiry foci. This grants program is a clear signal that the mts views teacher action research as a viable and meaningful form of professional development for its members. m e r n also now leverages support for teacher research by funding teacher release time and by providing face-to-face and virtual meeting spaces for research partners, opportunities for disseminating research findings, and leadership and facilitation (Hunter 2015). The network’s director has initiated projects to enable teachers to work in concert with a variety of university mentors and educational partners. Three more formal, discipline-based Teacher Research Groups (trg) recently emerged within mern in the areas of Indigenous Education, Mathematics Education, and Social Studies Education. To illustrate, the Social Studies t r g grew out of a concern related to the challenges high school teachers faced when attempting to implement a new, inquiry-based Grade 12 social studies course focusing on global issues. According to Kornelsen (2016, 1), the situation was becoming critical: “Enrolment numbers were dropping; teachers were becoming reluctant to teach the new course; and, in some high schools, the course was being dropped entirely.” Pilot teachers came together with two education professors and three department consultants to study their project-based coursework in action with students and develop recommendations and pedagogical approaches that could be shared with teachers across the province. The practical knowledge generated by the action research cycles of pilot teachers was formally presented at a mern forum and later published in a special issue of The mern Journal (Terry 2014). teacher action research f o r u n d e r g r a d u at e s t u d e n t s

We now have a twenty-nine-year history of in-service educators conducting action research as part of their advanced degree programs in Manitoba. More and more experienced educators are undertaking studies for job-embedded professional development or resolving an array of educational problems. Despite this positive trend, progress toward involving pre-service teachers in action research in Manitoba has been very slow. Fortunately, a new wind is blowing within the

31656_Clausen-black.indd 90

20-06-11 13:19



The Teacher Action Research Movement in Manitoba 91

University of Manitoba, one that encourages academics to engage with their undergraduate students in formal research processes. No longer are undergraduate students being viewed as incapable of contributing to the real world of research. The Undergraduate Research Award was launched to provide students with the chance to experience research in their disciplines of interest alongside one of their professors. Essentially, most students become research assistants and work with a professor of their choice for sixteen weeks over the summer, and in exchange, they receive a $7,000 award. This university-wide grants program gives a small number of teacher candidates the chance to be intimately mentored in various action research practices, often community-based projects, each year. The current emphasis on providing undergraduate students with a research education set the stage perfectly for introducing an action research course for teacher candidates. The Faculty of Education at the University of Manitoba had just undergone a period of undergraduate program renewal. As part of that process, new elective courses for the new After-Degree Bachelor of Education Program had to be developed, and so the time was ripe. Teams of teacher educators worked together to create new electives that would be applicable across our three program streams (early years, middle years, and senior years). The stream that I led proposed a new course – Professional Learning through Inquiry. This new elective addresses the process of learning about and preparing to do a self-selected teacher inquiry connected to teacher candidates’ school practicum experiences. Despite their novice status within the profession, we want our teacher candidates to view themselves like Stenhouse did, as intellectuals who are capable of doing research, taking action, and making a difference. With the introduction of this new teacher research course at the undergraduate level in January 2018, Manitoba teacher educators will join others across Canada who are already including teacher inquiry projects and courses as part of their undergraduate programs. By taking on a teacher-as-researcher disposition at the pre-service stage, beginning teachers may enter the field more equipped to thrive in the complex, contemporary classroom spaces that await them. final thoughts

Provincially, action research is viewed today as giving voice to educators and other stakeholders for engaging students, colleagues, and families in critical conversations for change as well as taking the lead

31656_Clausen-black.indd 91

20-06-11 13:19

92

Francine Morin

in improving educational practices. Teacher action research has come to “invigorate Manitoba’s educational community, helping to develop and advance the thinking within that community” (Hunter 2015, 51). In many ways, Manitoba’s story mimics the historical evolution of action research as a methodology that has become more sophisticated as scholars have expanded upon its nature and purpose. From the outset, action research presented as a practical science consisting of small-scale teacher-research efforts at the classroom level; it has now progressed to include a body of critically oriented projects and largerscale collaborative studies that address broader issues, involve a mosaic of partners, and extend across multiple sites. The action research movement is now firmly rooted in Manitoba’s educational landscape, offering wings to educators who want to grow in their abilities to address the multilayered problems that perplex our profession as we continue to work toward thoughtful and impactful change. In the years to come, we will need to recalibrate approaches to teacher professional learning and development so that action research is afforded “multiple entryways and exits and its own lines of flight” (Deleuze and Guattari 1987, 21). Our movement will continue to flourish if educators have a better understanding of the paradigm itself, practices and tools, and opportunities to develop identities as action researchers. This means ensuring that action research finds its way into the curriculum for all undergraduate, post-baccalaureate, and graduate students taking educational studies at all universities in our province. To ensure the future we want, educational leaders must also continue to embrace action research as a powerful catalyst for learning and reform and offer sustained support and enhancements for the trail-blazers doing it. The next wave of teacher action researchers in Manitoba will draw nourishment from the roots of the past, taking flight from the groundwork of studies imagined and realized by their predecessors.

references

Antel, Bonnie. 2010. “Informing and Transforming My Choral Teaching Practice: A Study of the Pedagogical Approaches of Six Master Teachers of Elementary Children’s Choirs.” Master’s thesis, University of Manitoba. Bradbury, Hilary, ed. 2015. The sage Handbook of Action Research (3rd ed.). Los Angeles, ca: Sage.

31656_Clausen-black.indd 92

20-06-11 13:19



The Teacher Action Research Movement in Manitoba 93

Cochran-Smith, Marilyn, and Susan Lytle. 1993. Inside/Outside: Teacher Research and Knowledge. New York, ny: Teachers College Press. – 1998. “Teacher Research: The Question that Persists.” International Journal of Leadership in Education 1(1), 19–36. Collis, Katherine, Thomas Falkenberg, and Francine Morin. 2013. “A Program Model for the Induction of Inner City Teachers.” The mern Journal 6, 15–25. Deleuze, Gilles, and Felix Guattari. 1987. A Thousand Plateaus: Capitalism and Schizophrenia (trans. Brian Massumi). Minneapolis, mn: University of Minnesota Press. Elliott, John. 1991. Action Research for Educational Change. Milton Keynes, UK: Open University Press. Ferley, Maureen. 2006. “An Action Research Study of Effective and Efficient Rehearsals in a Grade 8 Band Setting.” Master’s thesis, University of Manitoba. Fransen, Joan. 1998. “An Investigation into the Use of Portfolio Assessment in Elementary Music Education.” Master’s thesis, University of Manitoba. Freire, Paulo. 2000. Pedagogy of the Oppressed (30th anniversary ed.). New York, n y: Continuum. Gallas, Karen. 1993. The Languages of Learning. New York, ny: Teachers College Press. – 1997. Sometimes I Can Be Anything: Power, Gender, and Identity in the Primary Classroom. New York, ny: Teachers College Press. Hunter, Heather. 2015. “The Manitoba Education Research Network: Teacher Research to Enhance Equity and Engagement in Education.” Education Canada 55(1), 49–51. http://www.cea-ace.ca/education-­ canada/article/manitoba-education-research-network. Hunter, Todd. 2016. “Critical Mathematics and Critical Literacy for Indigenous Students in an Urban Alternative High School Program: An Action Research Study.” Master’s thesis, University of Manitoba. Kemmis, Stephen, and Robin McTaggart. 1988. The Action Research Planner (3rd ed.). Victoria, Australia: Deakin University Press. Kornelsen, Lloyd. 2016. “Researching Practice: Findings from Teacher Inquiry into the Implementation of the Grade 12 Global Issues Course in Manitoba.” Manitoba Education Research Network (mer n), Occasional Paper Series. Teacher Research, Number 1. http://www. mern.ca/occ/ted-1.pdf. Mezirow, Jack. 1997. “Transformative Learning: Theory to Practice.” New Directions for Adult and Continuing Education 74, 5–12.

31656_Clausen-black.indd 93

20-06-11 13:19

94

Francine Morin

Miller, Janet. 1990. Creating Spaces and Finding Voices: Teachers Collaborating for Empowerment. Albany, ny: State University of New York Press. Morin, Francine. 1995. “The Effects of a Music Course and Student Teaching Experience on Early Years/Elementary Pre-Service Teachers’ Orientations toward Music and Teaching.” Canadian Journal of Research in Music Education 36(7), 5–12. – 2000. “Awakening Aesthetic Inquiry Within: The Making of an InquiryDriven Teacher Education Program.” Canadian Music Educator 42(1), 11–17. – 2004. “A Self-Study Investigation of a University-School Partnership Approach to Physical Education in Teacher Education.” Avante 10(1), 27–43. – 2010. A Study of Arts Education in Manitoba Schools. Manitoba Education Research Network (m ern ) Monograph Series, Issue 3. Winnipeg, m b: Manitoba Education Research Network. http://www. mern.ca/monographs/study_arts_education_electronic.pdf. – 2014. “From Caracas to the Canadian Prairies: Pilot Evaluation of an El Sistema–Inspired After-School Orchestral Program.” Canadian Music Educator 56(1), 20–6. – 2015. “Sistema Winnipeg: Music for Social Action.” mass Journal 16(2), 13–16. Morin, Francine, and Deborah Begoray. 2002. “A New View of Professional Development for Curriculum Reform Involving Language Arts and the Arts.” Teaching and Learning: The Journal of Natural Inquiry and Reflective Practice 16(3), 95–105. Morin, Francine, Katherine Collis, Gail Ruta-Fontaine, Cathryn Smith, and Jennifer Watt. 2017. “Early Service Teachers’ Experiences with a Division-Wide Two Year Teacher Induction and Mentorship Program.” In The Bliss and Blisters of Early Career Teaching: A Pan-Canadian Perspective, edited by Benjamin Kutsyuruba and Keith Walker, 287– 309. Burlington, on : Word and Deed Publishing. Newman, Judith, ed. 1998. Tensions of Teaching: Beyond Tips to Critical Reflection. Toronto: Canadian Scholars’ Press. Schön, Donald. 1983. The Reflective Practitioner. How Professionals Think in Action. London, UK: Temple Smith. – 1987. Educating the Reflective Practitioner. San Francisco, c a : Jossey-Bass. Serebrin, Wayne, and Francine Morin. 2007. “21st Century Literacy Education: New Directions for Music in the Early Years Curriculum.”

31656_Clausen-black.indd 94

20-06-11 13:19



The Teacher Action Research Movement in Manitoba 95

In Listen to Their Voices: Research and Practice in Early Childhood Music, edited by Katherine Smithrim and Rena Upitis, 288–300. Waterloo, on : Canadian Music Educators Association. Smith, Cathryn. 2014. “Developing Teacher Leaders for Social Justice: Building Agency through Community, Critical Reflection and Action Research.” Doctoral dissertation, University of Manitoba. Stenhouse, Lawrence. 1975. An Introduction to Curriculum Research and Development. London, UK: Heinemann Educational Books. Terry, Marion, ed. 2014. The mern Journal, Volume 9. Special Issue: Social Studies Education. http://www.mern.ca/journal/Journal-V09.pdf. University of Manitoba. 2019. Graduate Academic Calendar, 2019–2020. http://umanitoba.ca/student/records/media/Final_Graduate_Calendar.pdf.

31656_Clausen-black.indd 95

20-06-11 13:19

31656_Clausen-black.indd 96

20-06-11 13:19

part b

The Individual and Action Research The traditional image of the teacher has been that of the solitary ­figure. Although this has changed a great deal since educators plied their trade in the confines of a small, one-room schoolhouse, a great deal of the work still remains rather self-contained in nature. This holds true for many action research endeavours that take place within a school. There are, of course, challenges and benefits of assuming sole responsibility for an action research project. Working independently may be a lonely and isolated venture. As well, the individual approach further embeds Robert Eaker’s (2002) notion that classroom teachers are independent contractors with a shared parking lot. Some teachers, nevertheless, prefer a private/individual practi­ tioner model to improve or refine their own practice. There is an empowering, positive effect to research what is relevant to individual teacher-researchers to be more effective at what they are doing. The work centres on the practitioner as teachers investigate areas of concern that are applicable to their practice. The focus is on changes in a single classroom, where the teacher defines the problem area and seeks solutions to the problem. The approach is for self-interest, but it is more meaningful to the teacher-researcher than traditional research, which is objective. Although the results from individual classroom action research may have limited generalizability, the data provide convincing evidence that their efforts are making a real difference. Rather than using preferences, hunches, or gut feelings to inform their practice, educators use the data to inform their decisions. Teachers can share their results with others in the school community, which can lead to

31656_Clausen-black.indd 97

20-06-11 13:19

98

Part B

higher-order discussions or change in school policy, and others can draw their own conclusions on the results. The individual project may add to a larger body of research. The authors of the following chapters discuss action research as an individual endeavour, providing insight into the personal journeys of individual teacher-researchers. Teachers’ exploration with action research, informally and formally, has ignited a flame teachers use to inform their professional practice. Conducting action research allows teachers to no longer be passive recipients; rather, they have control over how they teach and the skills to interpret how they teach it. Engaging in action research helps teachers to become reflective practitioners, build their content knowledge, ­connect theory to practice, and collaborate with colleagues in school and the broader education community. Strengthening their professional practice through action research is not without its challenges, as reflected in each author’s perspective with action research. With a view to overcoming challenges, the authors provide suggestions for educators and policy-makers to continue the action research momentum.

reference

Eaker, Robert. 2002. “Cultural Shifts: Transforming Schools into Professional Learning Communities.” In Robert Eaker, Richard DuFour, and Rebecca DuFour (Eds), Getting Started: Reculturing Schools to Become Professional Learning Communities, 9–32. Bloomington, in: National Education Service.

31656_Clausen-black.indd 98

20-06-11 13:19

5 Teachers as Researchers and Research Users Daniel A. Laitsch

The fields of action research and research use are symbiotically linked, and that relationship is the focus of this chapter. Action research – defined more fully in other areas of this book – can be loosely summarized as democratic and participatory research designed to result in actions taken to solve pressing concerns (Bradbury-Huang 2015). Research use can broadly be defined as the use of research to solve problems of policy and practice (Earley, Farley-Ripple, and Laitsch 2017). Both fields are interested, at least in part, in the application of research to solve problems of practice. I first encountered the power of research use when I entered the classroom as a high school teacher of English more than twenty-five years ago. My teaching assignment was in a US high school for “behaviour-problem truant adolescents,” where I taught general English classes. As a school for students with behaviour problems, we had a strict code of conduct that meant student language was carefully controlled – no drug talk, no cursing, no threats. A key cornerstone of my English classes was strengthening the reading and writing skills of my students, and an important strategy in that area was journaling. Research at the time highlighted the interrelated nature of writing and reading and the importance of regular free writing (and reading) for improving fluency and confidence in student writing. To get students writing, I required them to keep a nightly free-writing journal – one page each night, on a topic of their choice. The use of a journal for my students, however, quickly created a conflict between the school’s code of conduct and my assignment.

31656_Clausen-black.indd 99

20-06-11 13:19

100

Daniel A. Laitsch

While my administrators at the time initially balked at my request to relax the code of conduct standards for student journals (focusing on safety, not particular words or language), to their credit when I presented the research on journaling and the importance of free writing, they agreed to let me offer my students greater freedom. Happily, the pre- and post-enrolment assessment data around reading and writing that we collected ended up supporting the instructional interventions I was using as well, showing substantial improvement in student reading and writing levels (more about this later). This initial foray into research use, and the power that using research-based instructional strategies could have on my professional autonomy, has guided my professional life ever since. research in teaching

Research is a cornerstone of what it means to practise teaching in the twenty-first century. Initiate teachers are prepared for practice through exposure to research-based practices in formal university-based schools of education. Novice teachers who meet appropriate professional standards as evaluated by their preparation programs and provincial governing bodies are given licences to teach and embark upon their professional careers. As part of the process, teachers are exposed to interdisciplinary research looking at, among other areas, child growth and development, human learning and understanding, assessment and evaluation, and philosophy, as well as specific subject matter knowledge. For most teachers, this initial engagement with research expands into ongoing professional development, which includes both informal engagement with current research and formal study (such as through graduate degree programs). Research shows that teachers value research within their practice, even as they see barriers and facilitators to its use (Laitsch and Naylor 2013; Laitsch and Nilson 2011). teachers as research users

Every good research activity starts with a review of the research. Knowing what questions other scholars have asked, as well as what answers they’ve found (and the strategies they’ve used), allows us to ask and answer our own questions more efficiently. As practitioners, we engage in the first steps of the research process when we try to

31656_Clausen-black.indd 100

20-06-11 13:19



Teachers as Researchers and Research Users 101

educate ourselves about the research and theory-based foundations of best practice. This self-study can take many forms – from Google searches and library visits to talking with our colleagues, spouses, and friends. Research looking at information-seeking behaviours suggests that we generally start with other people we know and trust – local leaders and colleagues – later extending to written sources we know and trust: journals, professional magazines, and websites (Laitsch and Younghusband, 2016). While historically scholars have worried that teachers won’t understand or take the time to read research, surveys looking at teacher beliefs in British Columbia have found these assumptions are no longer accurate, if they ever were (Laitsch and Nilson 2011; Laitsch and Naylor 2013). The survey, initially given in one school district but later expanded across the province, was focused on institutional barriers and facilitators to research use, but it also looked at the personal characteristics and dispositions of respondents toward research use. Across the two iterations of the survey, the vast majority of respondents felt that it was “very important” for them to have easy access to research, and out of 147 respondents, only four identified the clarity or readability of research as one of the top three barriers to its use. teacher as action researchers

While reading research provides an important starting place for improving practice, conducting research provides teachers with a systematic method for understanding the world around them. The anecdote I shared at the beginning of the chapter highlighted the power of research as a tool to guide our instructional practices. Unfortunately, that story ended too quickly. While I was able to show evidence of improved student literacy based on entrance and exit assessments, I missed the opportunity to connect that improvement with specific teaching strategies (or even with my own practice – perhaps the improvement in scores was instead due to literacy assignments in social studies classes). By researching my own practice in more depth, I could have better understood the role, if any, free-writing journals played in improving student achievement. Research is based on questioning our understanding of the context in which we are immersed (in the case of the teacher, our classrooms and schools), building on that understanding, generating questions

31656_Clausen-black.indd 101

20-06-11 13:19

102

Daniel A. Laitsch

and testing hypotheses, and formally reflecting, informing, and evolving our practice. As noted earlier, it begins with surveying existing research repositories (journals, websites, our colleagues) to find out what is known, to explore questions, and to discuss methods of data collection that might allow us to answer those questions. Once we have a sense of “where we are,” we then take on the mantle of researcher and begin to try to answer the questions we created. While some educators may be concerned about becoming a “researcher” and engaging in research within their classroom, the process is not nearly as alien as it may sound. When we hear “research,” many of us immediately envision complex statistical procedures, experiments, control groups, and testing. While this may be an accurate portrayal of some types of research, it is a very narrow definition and doesn’t do justice to the breadth of approaches one can take toward understanding the world around us. Instead, research should be visualized as falling on a continuum, from the haphazard and informal to the systematic and formal, as shown in figure 5.1. Where one falls on that continuum maps to the type of understanding we are seeking (what is happening in my very local context or what the truth may be across contexts). Take, for example, the very first things you were likely to do this morning. If you woke before your alarm, you probably checked the clock to see what time it was or looked out the window to see if it was light yet. You immediately started gathering data. Based on your analysis of that data, you decided to roll over and go back to sleep or to get up and start your day. We are by nature data-gathering machines. We take in and analyze vast amounts of data throughout the day and fit that data into theories we have developed over time, helping us to make decisions about the world (when it’s dark and cloudy outside, I should take an umbrella with me in case it rains). We conduct extensive interviews with our colleagues and friends through the conversations we hold; we survey people on the best routes to drive to work and quantitatively evaluate those routes based on average travel times across varying treatment conditions (dry, snow, rain, light, dark). The difference between this type of automatic (and informal) research and “scholarly” research is simply the extent to which we add intentionality to our work and formalize our questions, data gathering, and analysis. The level of formality we apply guides the power of the conclusions we can reach and the extent to which we change our lives based on those conclusions.

31656_Clausen-black.indd 102

20-06-11 13:19



Teachers as Researchers and Research Users 103 Casual/informal

Causal/formal

I—N—T—E—N—T—I—O—N—A—L—I—T—Y Scientifically haphazard

Scientifically methodical Scientific Method

Personal/individual

Observation

Broad/deep

Internal/judgment-based

Questioning/hypothesizing

Theory-based

Haphazard

Collecting data

Systematic

Informal

Analyzing data

Formal

Responsive

Applying analysis

Intentional

Internal

Refining understanding

External

Figure 5.1  Understanding the world around us Source: Adapted from Laitsch (2007)

Viewed in this light, researching our own practice simply means increasing the extent to which we intentionally ask questions and systematically seek to answer those questions. The difference between our individual interactions with the world, our actions as reflective practitioners, and our conclusions as scientific researchers rests on the systematic nature of our inquiry and the extent to which we are willing to be wrong in our conclusions. As the stakes increase, we become much more careful in our data gathering and analysis and more conservative in our conclusions (think, for example, of what we mean when we talk about levels of significance – where we are essentially talking about the level of risk we are willing to accept that our conclusions are wrong). While the stakes related to getting to work are relatively low, how we grade our students is much more important, and so we tend to gather and analyze a much wider body of information in a more careful and systematic manner. It is this engagement in understanding the world around us and the ongoing work to strengthen our practice that helps teachers to evolve from research users to research practitioners. They strengthen the extent to which they question the world in their classrooms and systematically reflect upon and analyze the data they gather that describes that world (from attendance, to behaviours, to grades, to personal stories and interactions) and answers those questions.

31656_Clausen-black.indd 103

20-06-11 13:19

104

Daniel A. Laitsch

As we increase the importance of the questions we ask, the quality of data we collect, and our confidence in the answers we find, we return to our colleagues to share the results of our work and grow from feedback we might receive. This leads to collaboration and the creation of research communities, which can then refine and continue to hone the professional knowledge of the community. Rather than gossip, rumour, and the next best fad, community knowledge becomes based on careful data collection and analysis, allowing for more informed decision-making. It also establishes the foundation for ongoing evaluation and refinement. s c h o o l - l e v e l b a r r i e r s a n d fa c i l i tat o r s to research and research use

Shifting our approach to teaching from one based on application of skills to application and refinement of knowledge is a complex task. While the foundation may be in place for teaching as a researchdriven profession, there are a number of barriers to fully realizing this goal. A review of research-use issues across the professional domains of education and medicine suggests that practitioners generally experience similar barriers to the use of research in improving practice, including creating the time to find and read research, applicability of findings to the local context, accessing building-level support in the application of research findings, and finding collegial support for research applications (Carrion, Woods, and Norman 2004; Clark and Brown 2006; Cooke et al. 2004; Hemsley-Brown and Sharp 2003). Similarly, Keller (1985) and Kezar (2000, 443) found that post-­ secondary education researchers and practitioners reported “that the higher education literature does not provide memorable, insightful, or important professional information.” Weak dissemination networks, scholarly reward systems that fail to emphasize dissemination to practitioners, gaps between researchers and practitioners, top-down decision-making structures, and an inability to evaluate research quality are also identified as barriers to use (Adamsen et al. 2003; Clark and Brown 2006; Cooke et al. 2004; Estabrooks et al. 2005; Hemsley-Brown and Sharp 2003; Jacobson, Butterill, and Goering 2004; Mccaughan et al. 2002). Incentives to using research in practice include peer and administrator support for research use, strong relationships between

31656_Clausen-black.indd 104

20-06-11 13:19



Teachers as Researchers and Research Users 105

researchers and practitioners, and prior or current engagement as a researcher (Adamsen et al. 2003; Fink, Thompson, and Bonnes 2005). While the use of research and data to evaluate school performance and improvement may create barriers to implementation (e.g., fear that research data may be used against practitioners in evaluation systems), regulatory changes supported by adequate funding can act as an incentive to incorporate research findings in practice. Despite assumptions about the relationship between the two, there is no apparent link between simple dissemination of research and changes in educational policy or practice. While this initial review merges the research across the professional domains of medicine, nursing, and teaching, significant differences may exist. For example, one of the major barriers to research use in medicine is the large volume of available research, with one survey finding 90 per cent of the respondents feeling overwhelmed by the quantity of research results (Adamsen et al. 2003). Such an abundance of research may not be the case in education, since a common complaint in education research circles is a dearth of available and high-quality research (Heyneman 1993). To help determine how this literature applies within the bc context, colleagues and I adapted a survey from the field of medicine and applied it in local bc schools (Laitsch and Nilson 2007) and later across teachers responsible for leading professional development (Laitsch and Naylor 2013). The first iteration of the survey looked at barriers and facilitators; the second iteration focused on just the barriers. Local educators responding to this survey were generally supportive of research use. When asked how important it was to them to have access to research findings, the most frequent response was “very important” with an average response value of 3.95 (using a five-point scale for this question). When asked about what resources they used to find research, respondents identified peers as their first choice, then highlighted school district resources, publications, and online resources. Think tanks and government sources were the least valued sources of research. In general, respondents felt that research use would be (best) facilitated through providing dedicated time for them to work collaboratively with peers (3.763 on a four-point scale) and by providing support for internal research activity, such as action research (3.544). While respondents generally responded positively to all facilitators (an average of 3.2 across all items), facilitators thought to be least

31656_Clausen-black.indd 105

20-06-11 13:19

106

Daniel A. Laitsch

effective were having a district-wide emphasis on research use and encouraging staff to provide evidence in decision-making processes. The greatest barriers to use were time to find and read research (3.542), lack of awareness regarding specific research (3.458), and insufficient time on the job to implement new ideas (3.305). Respondents did not feel that administrators were significant barriers to use (1.694), nor did they feel it took too long for research results to be released (1.768). Time for collaboration was by far the highest-ranked facilitator (84 points), followed by support for internal research (43 points). No respondents identified transparent decision-making as one of their top three facilitators. The highest-ranked barriers to research use were time to read research (53 points) and time to implement new ideas (52 points). Across the province, teachers engaged in leading professional development saw a similar picture. When asked how important it was to them to have access to research findings, the most frequent response was “very important,” with an average response value of 4.41 (using a five-point scale for this question). When asked about what resources they used to find research, respondents identified peers as their first choice, then highlighted professional learning communities, journals and books, and the British Columbia Teachers’ Federation (bct f ). Think tanks, government sources, and other professional organizations were the least valued sources of research. The highest-ranked barriers to research use were time to implement new ideas (72 points) and time to read research (54 points). “Educators being unaware of the research” was ranked third, at 31 points. teachers as researchers

So what does this all mean? There are four clear lessons from this research: teachers value community; teachers are interested in using and engaging in research; teachers need support; and teachers need time to collaborate, read, and implement research/change. Teachers Value Community The results from this research show that teachers value the chance to work collaboratively with peers, and this fits well with the concept

31656_Clausen-black.indd 106

20-06-11 13:19



Teachers as Researchers and Research Users 107

of action research, which has teachers working together to answer important questions and implement change regarding classroom practice. The tendency for practitioners to consult local colleagues first when seeking new information highlights the importance of supporting collaborative work time. Systematically building community allows time for more in-depth consultation, problem refinement, research review and design, and application to practice. By intentionally supporting a community focused on research use and engagement, schools can truly build data-driven – rather than fad- or anecdotedriven – practice. Teachers Are Interested in Using and Engaging in Research The teachers involved in this research clearly identified the link between accessing and reading research and engaging in research. They demonstrated a strong relationship between using research and engaging in research. In fact, there was a strong correlation between a teacher’s belief in the power of research to improve their practice and their training in research (such as through a graduate degree) or their experience in practising research (such as through action research). Similarly, teachers want to use the results of their research and evolve their practice. When we take the time to learn something new, we want the ability to also apply that new knowledge in our practice. There is a strong contradiction in policy if schools encourage teachers to engage in professional development and action research but then limit their ability to change practice in the classroom. This contradiction is evident in the next finding from the research – the need for support. Teachers Want Support While teachers didn’t see administrators as a barrier to using research, they do identify a need for intentional support for research use. They want both support for implementing change and support for conducting internal research activities. The support may include allowing greater collaboration, providing release time and research materials, or allowing teachers to drive individual and collective change (such as through distributed leadership practice). It also highlights the final, and most important, need …

31656_Clausen-black.indd 107

20-06-11 13:19

108

Daniel A. Laitsch

Teachers Want Time A teacher’s day is already filled by many important activities: teaching, curriculum design and course preparation, grading and evaluation, parent/teacher communication, professional development, student counselling and engagement, before- and after-school supervision, lunch and recess supervision, and a host of other time-consuming but important tasks. It is unlikely that simply asking teachers to take on another activity will result in substantive change without creating space in the schedule to support that activity. Teachers in this research strongly identified the need for time: time for collaboration; time for accessing and reading research; and time to implement change and engage in research. Asking teachers to engage in research activities individually or off the side of their desks, no matter how important these activities might be to improving practice, is unlikely to result in sustainable change. a framework for change

The Canadian educational landscape is diverse, varying substantially across the provinces and territories. That said, Canadian educators share the experience of professional university-based preparation for teaching, routine access to ongoing professional development, and strong support from professional associations and unions. As members of an established profession, Canadian educators have already demonstrated an ongoing commitment to scholarship, growth, and the application of learning to improving the context of their practice. This foundation provides the framework for formalizing educator engagement with research, its use and its active practice. Substantial work has been done over the past two decades regarding the concepts of action research, as discussed here, and the related concept of professional learning communities (plcs). In many instances, districts have viewed professional learning communities as a way to gather teachers together in teams to work on implementing targeted change around particular established ideas. Clearly, the research highlighted here supports the power and necessity of community for furthering change. That said, it might be time to revisit Wengers’s original notion of community of practice from which much of the work on p l cs has

31656_Clausen-black.indd 108

20-06-11 13:19



Teachers as Researchers and Research Users 109

grown. Wenger theorized that communities of practice form irrespective of specific structure – instead, they are a framework around which learning occurs. Learning must come from the collective actions of the community and cannot be mandated or controlled through creation of teams and assignment of topics (Farnsworth, Kleanthous, and Wenger-Trayner 2016). Instead, we can seek to nurture a research-based community of practice by providing space in the school day for community learning, by facilitating access to particular types of knowledge (research-based), and by supporting systematic knowledge practices (action research). We can distribute decision-making authority across members of the community and embrace change, even as we evaluate the outcomes of that change, again using the tools of research. Returning to my experience at the beginning of the chapter when I first encountered the power of research within my practice, had the context in which I was working been more intentionally structured as an action research–based community of practice, my actions would not have stopped at applying existing research to my practice. Rather, I would have continued to look at the results of that application and ensured that my actions were not just based on a good idea but actually had the intended outcomes. Research use is an important beginning – but action research, applied within a community of practice, is the mechanism that closes the loop of continual improvement and problem-solving within teaching practice. Through supporting research-based communities of practice, the process can become iterative and institutionalized. By building the communities on a foundation of research knowledge and research practice rather than anecdote or fad, we can build an ongoing system focused on strengthening the work that we do in schools. A profession is defined as “a calling requiring specialized knowledge and often long and intensive academic preparation.” A key component of conceptualizing teaching as a profession is ensuring that teachers acquire, and grow, that body of “specialized knowledge.” A powerful way to do that is through building a research framework around which professional learning communities can form. Teachers across Canada have the supports in place to continue to strengthen their position as professionals and improve outcomes for their students as they align their work in research use and research conduct to take action on and solve problems within communities of practice.

31656_Clausen-black.indd 109

20-06-11 13:19

110

Daniel A. Laitsch references

Adamsen, Lis, Kristian Larsen, Lene Bjerregaard, and Jan K. Madsen. 2003. “Danish Research-Active Clinical Nurses Overcome Barriers in Research Utilization.” Scandinavian Journal of Caring Sciences 17(1), 57–65. doi:10.1046/j.1471-6712.2003.00124.x. Bradbury-Huang, Hilary, ed. 2015. “The sage Handbook of Action Research.” London, UK: Sage. ProQuest Ebook Central. Carrion, Maria, Phil Woods, and Ian Norman. 2004. “Barriers to Research Utilisation among Forensic Mental Health Nurses.” International Journal of Nursing Studies 41(6), 613–19. doi:10.1016/j. ijnurstu.2004.01.006. Clark, Jeffrey K., and Kelli McCormack Brown. 2006. “Bridging the Gap between Research and School Health Programs.” Journal of School Health 76(1), 38–9. doi:10.1111/j.1746-1561.2006.00065.x. Cooke, Liz, Cynthia Smith-Idell, Grace Dean, Robin Gemmill, Sharon Steingass, Virginia Sun, Marcia Grant, and Tami Borneman. 2004. “‘Research to Practice’: A Practical Program to Enhance the Use of Evidence-Based Practice at the Unit Level.” Oncology Nursing Forum 31(4), 825–32. doi:10.1188/04.onf.825-832. Earley, Penelope, Elizabeth Farley-Ripple, and Dan Laitsch. n.d. Editorial policies. The International Journal of Education Policy and Leadership. Accessed 21 September 2017. http://journals.sfu.ca/ijepl/index.php/ijepl/ about/editorialPolicies#focusAndScope. Estabrooks, Carole A., Huey Chong, Kristen Brigidear, and Joanne Profetto-McGrath. 2005. “Profiling Canadian Nurses’ Preferred Knowledge Sources for Clinical Practice.” Canadian Journal of Nursing Research (June), 118–40. http://cjnr.archive.mcgill.ca/article/view/1949. Farnsworth, Valerie, Irene Kleanthous, and Etienne Wenger-Trayner. 2016. “Communities of Practice as a Social Theory of Learning: A Conversation with Etienne Wenger.” British Journal of Educational Studies 64(2), 139–60. doi:10.1080/00071005.2015.1133799. Fink, Regina, Cathy J.Thompson, and Deborah Bonnes. 2005. “Overcoming Barriers and Promoting the Use of Research in Practice.” Journal of Nursing Administration 35(3), 121–9. Hemsley-Brown, Jane, and Caroline Sharp. 2003. “The Use of Research to Improve Professional Practice: A Systematic Review of Literature.” Oxford Review of Education 29(4), 449–70. Heyneman, Stephen. 1993. “Educational Quality and the Crisis of Educational Research.” International Review of Education 39(6), 511–17.

31656_Clausen-black.indd 110

20-06-11 13:19



Teachers as Researchers and Research Users 111

Jacobson, Nora, Dale Butterill, and Paula Goering. 2004. “Organizational Factors that Influence University-Based Researchers’ Engagement in Knowledge Transfer Activities.” Science Communication 25(3), 246–59. doi:10.1177/1075547003262038. Keller, George. 1985. “Trees without Fruit: The Problem with Research about Higher Education.” Change: The Magazine of Higher Learning 17(1), 7–10. doi:10.1080/00091383.1985.9940513. Kezar, Adrianna J. 2000. “Higher Education Research at the Millennium: Still Trees without Fruit?” The Review of Higher Education 23(4), 443–68. doi:10.1353/rhe.2000.0018. Laitsch, Daniel. 2007. “Thinking Scientifically: An Educational Approach to Systematizing the Way we Use Knowledge.” Paper presented to the Second Annual Conference on Building the Scientific Mind, Vancouver, b c , Canada, 31 May. Laitsch, Daniel, and Charlie Naylor. 2013. “Research Use in British Columbia: Status, Issues, and Opportunities.” Panel presentation at the annual meeting of the Canadian Society for the Study of Education, Victoria, bc, 4 June. Laitsch, Daniel, and Michelle Nilson. 2011. “Time and Place: Barriers and Facilitators to Teacher Use of Research.” Poster presentation to the annual meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, Washington, dc, 20 February. Laitsch, Daniel, and Christine Younghusband. 2019. “British Columbia School Trustees’ Use of Research and Information Seeking in Decision Making.” Canadian Journal for Educational Administration and Policy 188, 2–14. https://journalhosting.ucalgary.ca/index.php/cjeap/article/ view/43458. Mccaughan, Dorothy, Carl Thompson, Nicky Cullum, Trevor A. Sheldon, and David R. Thompson. 2002. “Acute Care Nurses’ Perceptions of Barriers to Using Research Information in Clinical Decision-Making.” Journal of Advanced Nursing 39(1), 46–60. doi:10.1046/j.1365-2648. 2002.02241.x.

31656_Clausen-black.indd 111

20-06-11 13:19

6 Action Research by a Classroom Teacher Professional Development at Its Best Zoe Donoahue

Action research is a powerful tool for professional development, teacher education, and research. Classroom teachers who participate in action research can pursue their own questions and interests and as a result can improve their content knowledge and teaching practice. As well, action research provides opportunities for teachers to engage with the broader educational community as they read related literature and share their findings with colleagues, at conferences, and in publications. This form of grassroots professional development that is not tied to performance review or formal evaluations can empower, inspire, and professionalize teachers. This chapter will explore these themes and will include examples of one teacher’s action research projects. Gone are the days when action research was solely conducted on teachers and students by researchers from outside the classroom. Over a long career as an elementary teacher, I have watched as teachers have made action research their own, examining their own questions, collecting and analyzing data, and using their results to reflect, plan, and improve their teaching practice and classroom programs. I have since come to believe that action research is an ideal form of professional development for classroom teachers. I became involved in action research as an early career teacher when working on a master’s degree. The first few courses I took were interesting, but the focus of my studies changed dramatically when I took a course that was structured around action research. This course allowed me to pursue questions I had about my own practice, taught

31656_Clausen-black.indd 112

20-06-11 13:19



Action Research by a Classroom Teacher 113

me how to collect and analyze data, and allowed me to experience the excitement of sharing my findings within a community of teacherresearchers. The course was spread over two academic terms so that we had sufficient time to conduct our own research, share work in progress with classmates and the professor, and present our findings. I was hooked and vowed to never again take a course that asked only that I summarize what others had learned.  Many benefits of exploring my own questions through action research have become apparent to me over my career. Being an action researcher has improved my teaching practice and has made me a more reflective practitioner. It has encouraged me to build my content knowledge and to connect theory to practice. It has allowed me to collaborate with my colleagues and to feel part of a community, both within my school and within the larger educational community. In this chapter, action research projects will be cited as these benefits are discussed. Issues and roadblocks relating to action research will also be explored. action research improves teaching practice

Action research is an ideal mode of professional development for improving classroom practice. So much of what teachers do in classrooms is developed through trial and error, and ideas circulate through professional development opportunities, professional reading, or informally through conversations between teachers. Questions can arise when a teacher is feeling unsettled or unhappy with his or her teaching; engaging in action research can be a way for the teacher to systematically explore these questions. Reflective practitioners may feel they already do something like action research, but the difference is the analysis of the data rather than just having a question and noticing what is going on or collecting data but doing nothing with it. Action research is also a powerful vehicle for teachers to evaluate the purpose and effectiveness of their practices as opposed to relying on gut feelings. One year, I wondered how I might improve the level of discourse in my Grade 2 class, and this led to a year-long exploration of the discussions we had after I read aloud from a novel each day (Donoahue 1998). I had noticed that every comment by a child was followed by a comment from me and wondered if our conversations could be more like “real-life” and if my voice could be heard less. I wanted the

31656_Clausen-black.indd 113

20-06-11 13:19

114

Zoe Donoahue

children to both initiate the topics that we would discuss and to sustain the discussion with minimal direction and interference from me. I hoped that they would listen critically, build onto one another’s ideas, and ask and find answers to each other’s questions. I was also interested in my role in the discussions and wanted to analyze my comments and my reasons for making them. I videotaped many discussions, transcribed key pieces, and examined the comments made by the children and by me. I then looked at how these comments helped or hindered the discussion. I talked explicitly to the children about my goals for our discussions, and we developed protocols that moved control of the discussions from me to the students. Further videotaping and transcribing allowed me to see progress and to plan for future interventions. Transcribing student discourse was new to me as an action researcher. I found the transcription process incredibly time-consuming but also very valuable because it resulted in clear and detailed information that could be reflected upon and analyzed. Watching myself on video, while sometimes hard, revealed a great deal about my teaching and allowed me to step back and to see myself and the children more objectively. Looking at transcriptions of our discussions gave me great insight into the types of comments I was making and helped me to think about how being more intentional about my contributions could help to raise the level of student discourse. Looking at students’ comments allowed me to focus on their quality and content and allowed me to assess the growth in their contributions over time. Gathering and analyzing data from my own classroom and using this information to change or modify my practice was transformative. Conducting action research helped me to focus on a program area about which I was curious or wanted to improve upon and gave me the sense that all aspects of my teaching and my classroom program were improvable. I was excited to see how the quality and tone of our read-aloud discussions improved and how I could be more aware of my role and of my influence during these discussions. It can be empowering for classroom teachers to research their own practice. Teachers may feel that they have little choice about what they teach; researching how they deliver curriculum and then using this information to improve and modify their programs can give teachers a sense of control. Looking critically at the curriculum and how it works best for students puts teachers in a position to share their findings with administration or policy-makers and to use this data to

31656_Clausen-black.indd 114

20-06-11 13:19



Action Research by a Classroom Teacher 115

critically evaluate curriculum. They can also use what they have learned to modify their classroom teaching and practices and to improve student learning and outcomes. Teaching is truly a profession when teachers can approach their work with a critical eye and a desire to improve their practice. action research allows students to see their teachers as reflective practitioners

Action research can allow students to see their teachers as reflective practitioners. Research of this sort is a wonderful opportunity for teachers to explicitly talk to students about why they chose their question and to invite students to collaborate in the research. Teachers can co-research with their students by involving them in data collection. They can share their findings and show how the findings are affecting the classroom program. This process of co-researching can enable “students to truly have a voice in the classroom and to explore questions about who we are, how we live together and how we learn best” (Bell-Angus et al. 2008, 26). Because my action research is qualitative, I am not worried about contaminating my results when I involve my students in the process. Seeing that their teacher is interested in improving his or her practice can be a powerful model for students. Nancie Atwell (1991, 8) writes that teacher-researchers can “serve as models of thoughtfulness for our students,” so as my research on classroom discussions evolved and I began to have a sense of what I was finding out from it, I shared my thoughts with the children. They then became aware of and invested in my goals; in fact, they became our goals, and our discussions improved dramatically. A second collaborative action research project in my Grade 2 class related to weekly class meetings, a time when we reflected on the week, listed reminders, solved social problems, and made plans (Donoahue 2001). My question was how these class meetings helped to build community. I let the children know I would be videotaping each meeting to explore my question and told them I wasn’t sure what I would discover but was sure that collecting and examining the data would lead to some insights about our classroom community. The children seemed intrigued that I would think their comments important enough to tape, and some even got into the habit of checking to be sure that I had the camera set up and turned on each week.

31656_Clausen-black.indd 115

20-06-11 13:19

116

Zoe Donoahue

Studying our community through class meetings gave me the opportunity to involve the children in my research, and doing this, I believe, strengthened our sense of being a learning community. As well as showing me what was important to the children in our classroom community, hearing what they felt was going well prompted me to reflect on my own teaching and helped me to plan a program that was more effective and motivating for the children. Their feedback showed me how much they were valuing and aware of the learning that was occurring and helped me, with their input, to plan future activities. Marian Mohr (1996, 119) believes that it is important that “teacher researchers learn in front of their students, demonstrating and discussing the processes that a researcher – a learner – goes through. Their students watch this learner at work and see not only what there is to learn, but ways to learn it.” The children were curious about what I would say when I presented my findings at an out-of-town conference, so I told them what I would be speaking about. When I returned, I talked to them about what I had learned from presenting my findings and from attending other conference sessions. I also relayed to them some of the comments and questions people had asked at my session. Karen Gallas (1994, 18) writes about making her research more “visible” to the children she teaches: “[The children] understand that while I am a teacher, I also study what is happening in the classroom. It makes their actions as learners more important and more powerful.” As does Nancie Atwell (1991, 8), I hope that my children will remember me “as an adult who learned in public, as a researcher.” action research connects theory and practice

Participating in action research can lead teachers to read about current research, which allows them to connect theory and practice, to engage with the larger educational community, and to ground their research in the field. Hubbard and Power (1993, 104) write that “for most research questions, you will want to see who else has ‘wondered’ similar things. What have they discovered? How have they approached this task?” It is important for teachers to see how their research is situated within what others have discovered and to acknowledge the work of those who have come before them. Teachers might also see how their findings can make a contribution to that area of study. One of my first action research projects was in my Grade 4/5 class, stemming from concerns I had about the social interactions between

31656_Clausen-black.indd 116

20-06-11 13:19



Action Research by a Classroom Teacher 117

my students, particularly the girls. My first response was to search for literature that would help me to understand what was going on with these students. Themes in the literature echoed what I was observing, and this link inspired me to add to my understanding by interviewing the students about friendship – how they choose their friends, what makes a good friend, what they like to do with friends, if friends were becoming more important to them, and how they handle disputes with friends. Data from these interviews revealed interesting similarities and differences between the boys and the girls, and I came away with a better understanding of the children’s views of friendship. This then helped me to be more effective in helping children with their social interactions at school. Reading professionally can also strengthen program delivery because teachers have a stronger theoretical base for the decisions they make in the classroom. Action research about topics such as spelling, social interactions, and classroom discussions led me to read what others had questioned and discovered, and I was excited to build onto and contribute to an existing body of research. a c t i o n r e s e a r c h i s c o l l a b o r at i v e , b u i l d s c o m m u n i t y , a n d d e c r e a s e s f e e l i n g s o f i s o l at i o n

Teacher research can provide a vehicle for teachers in a school to work collaboratively on a topic of common interest, and it can help teachers deal with feelings of isolation that may arise as they work on their own in their classrooms (Donoahue 1996). Through masters of education coursework, I had the opportunity to design my own course, and this took the form of collaboratively examining the spelling program at my school with a multi-grade group of teachers. As well as sharing and documenting the elements of our programs, we read professional resources and interviewed children to see their attitudes and perceptions about spelling programs. Teachers were then invited to use what they had learned to change or modify their own spelling program. Working together built community and connections between teachers and, I hope, decreased feelings of isolation. action research builds content knowledge

Action research is an effective way for teachers to build content knowledge. Teachers can deepen their subject knowledge when their research focuses on improving teaching and/or student learning in

31656_Clausen-black.indd 117

20-06-11 13:19

118

Zoe Donoahue

content area programming. My research over the past few years has focused on a part of my math program in my Grade 1 classroom, the daily calendar time, when I am particularly interested in student discourse and how the children develop and articulate theories (Donoahue 2016). I have had to increase my own content area knowledge in order to more effectively respond to students’ comments, which often involve fairly sophisticated concepts, even though students are only six years old. I have many notes and transcripts from these math-focused discussions, and analysis of them has helped me to see what I need to learn more about. The action research project about creating a school-wide spelling program was another wonderful opportunity to build content area knowledge that could be directly applied to classroom programs. As the facilitator of this project, I read many books and articles and shared what I felt might be relevant to other members of the group. By the end of the study, my hope was that a large portion of our school staff would possess shared knowledge about how to teach spelling that would strengthen our programs and make them more developmentally appropriate and consistent from year to year. action research professionalizes teaching

Participating in action research helps teachers to be seen and to see themselves as knowledgeable professionals with an important voice in the educational community. It can transform a teacher’s practice and can foster feelings of efficacy and empowerment. Teachers who must teach a mandated curriculum can exert some control over how they interpret and teach it, and they can follow their own interests rather than focusing on an area that is determined by administration, the school board, or the ministry of education. For this reason alone, it is critical that teachers be encouraged to become action researchers. Our educational system needs teachers who have the knowledge, voice, and critical eye that comes from doing action research. Looking at my teaching critically and finding the answers to my own questions is something that has always been part of my practice, but formalizing this process through action research has strengthened this process. Self-selected topics allow teachers to closely examine an aspect of their practice and improve it, making it an ideal form of profession development – self-selected, relevant, timely, and personal. Wells and ChangWells (1992, 49) argue that in order for teachers to address the

31656_Clausen-black.indd 118

20-06-11 13:19



Action Research by a Classroom Teacher 119

problems that are important to them, this “new model” must replace the “traditional, transmission approach to professional development.” This form of grassroots professional development that is not tied to performance review or formal evaluations can empower, inspire, and professionalize teachers. action research connects teachers to the l a r g e r e d u c at i o n a l c o m m u n i t y

Participating in action research allows teachers to make a contribution to the teaching profession beyond writing a paper or getting a degree. It can facilitate a stronger connection with the larger educational community and can enhance teachers’ feelings of professionalism and self-esteem. Teachers may seek out opportunities to share findings within their school, to lead workshops, or to present at conferences. They might also write about and share their studies through books, articles, and blogs. The process of writing can be a “tool for learning” whereby teachers can “discover new meanings in what has been written and … identify points that need further elaboration or clarification” (Wells and Chang-Wells 1992). It is motivating to share with an audience, and having a goal to write or present provides a reason to analyze data, read, and write. Over the years, I have presented at numerous conferences in Canada and the United States and have published my research in books and journals. My sense of being a professional who is a part of a vibrant community is enhanced when I participate in this manner, and I continue to learn and build my own knowledge as I am exposed to other practitioners’ ideas at conferences and in print. Connections made through presenting and writing can lead to other projects and opportunities and can situate the teacher within the action research community. action research and pre-service teachers

I believe that additional qualification courses and bachelor of education and master’s programs should have an action research component so that beginning teachers can approach their own practice through this lens and so that they can see the contribution they can make to their profession through conducting their own research and sharing their findings. Participating in action research during pre-service years could be a meaningful and engaging part of a teacher preparation

31656_Clausen-black.indd 119

20-06-11 13:19

120

Zoe Donoahue

program. And it might lead teachers to include action research as a regular part of their practice as they enter the profession. It is a shame that so many interesting papers are written for courses and not read by anyone else. In a traditional course, participants would be unlikely to know anything about anyone else’s research paper. I found action research courses to be a better model because our research was an ongoing part of the coursework. We had time each week to discuss our work and to get ideas and feedback from others. Teachers taking an action research course might be more likely to talk to others at their school about what they are doing and perhaps to share their findings at conferences. Having a meaningful audience for my work and seeing that others value and are interested in what I am doing is so powerful. challenges

As I’ve conducted action research, I have found it a challenge to stay on top of the data I am collecting, since it can accumulate very quickly and become overwhelming in its quantity. There is often a point when I have to discipline myself to stop collecting data and start to analyze it and then decide if I have enough. Making transcripts from audio and video recordings is very time-consuming but illuminating. I learn so much just from the process of transcribing, as well as from the chance to analyze the discourse in more depth. Interviewing children at the beginning, middle, and end of a study can provide valuable data. I find it helpful to take notes as the children talk that I can add to as I listen to the recording later. If time is an issue, whole-class discussions or written surveys, depending on the writing skills of the students, can be a way to quickly collect data. Student teachers and classroom volunteers can also be helpful in the data-collecting process. I also find it beneficial to keep a journal in which I make anecdotal notes about what happened each day. This helps to keep my research moving and naturally leads to reflection, questions, and further planning. Another challenge is finding time to do action research in addition to the many other demands at the classroom, school, board, and ministry level. It is ideal when data collection and observation can be an integral part of what is already happening in the classroom. Additional time is needed, however, for data analysis, reflection, and writing. Teachers who are committed to action research do use their own time

31656_Clausen-black.indd 120

20-06-11 13:19



Action Research by a Classroom Teacher 121

for this work; it would be ideal if teachers could be released during their school day to work on their research. Along with being given time, teacher-researchers can also be supported at the school or board level with money to pay for release time for meeting, planning, writing, and sharing their findings at conferences. A third challenge can be finding a supportive community within which to conduct action research. When action research is part of a course, this community occurs naturally. Teachers exploring their own questions outside of a course might find it beneficial to find a colleague who is also interested in exploring his or her own questions whom they can talk to and meet with to discuss their plans, work in progress, and findings. At the very least, having a critical friend who is interested in one’s research can be a great source of support. conclusion

“For teachers, collaborative inquiry involving cycles of planning, action, and reflection is exhilarating and rejuvenating. It restores our faith in the values for which we entered the profession. It makes ongoing school improvement viable, compelling, and immediate. It puts teachers and schools at the forefront of educational change. It empowers teachers by combining action to improve student achievement with self-directed, professional learning, so that we see ourselves not as passive recipients but as people empowered to make a difference. Further, it gives teachers a measure of choice and control over their own professional learning” (Franks, Daniels, and Wideman 2011, 2). Encouraging, supporting, and empowering both pre-service and in-service teachers to become teacher-researchers are critical to the continuing success and growth of the Canadian educational system. We need teachers who want to question and improve their practice and who can adopt the critical stance that being a teacher-researcher requires. The new ideas and knowledge that arise from teacher research and opportunities to share these findings will strengthen and unify our teaching community in ways that other forms of professional development cannot. Becoming a teacher-researcher changed my perspective as a classroom teacher. I have a way to identify, examine, and find solutions to questions and wonderings about my own practice. While continuing to participate in initiatives and evaluations from outside, I have taken ownership of my own professional development through conducting

31656_Clausen-black.indd 121

20-06-11 13:19

122

Zoe Donoahue

action research. This seems to be to be an ideal form of professional development for teachers.

references

Atwell, N. 1991. Side by Side: Essays on Teaching to Learn. Concord, on: Irwin Publishing. Bell-Angus, B., G. Davis, Z. Donoahue, M. Kowal, M. McGlynn-Stewart. 2008. “di cep: Promoting Collaborative Inquiry in Diverse Educational Settings.” In Learning Communities in Practice, edited by Anastasia Samaras, Clare Kosnik, and Clive Beck. London, UK: Springer. Donoahue, Z. 1996. “Collaboration, Community and Communication: Modes of Discourse for Teacher Research.” In Research in the Classroom: Talk, Texts, and Inquiry. Newark, de: International Reading Association. – 1998. “Fourth Graders Initiate and Sustain Discussion after Teacher Read-Alouds.” Orbit 29, 18–21. – 2001. “An Examination of the Development of Classroom Community through Class Meetings.” In Action, Talk and Text, edited by Gordon Wells. New York, n y: Teachers College Press. – 2016. “Opening the World of Mathematics: The Daily Math Discussion.” Teaching Children Mathematics 22(7), 428–33. Franks, D., D. Jarvis, and R. Wideman. 2011. “Capacity Building in Collaborative Action Research.” An Elementary Teachers’ Federation of Ontario Initiative Editorial. Canadian Journal of Action Research 12(3), 1–5. Gallas, Karen. 1994. The Languages of Learning. New York, ny: Teachers College Press. Hubbard, R. S., and B. M. Power. 1993. The Art of Classroom Inquiry. Portsmouth, n h: Heinemann. Mohr, Marian. 1996. “Wild Dreams and Sober Cautions: The Future of Teacher Research.” In Research in the Classroom: Talk, Texts and Inquiry, edited by Zoe Donoahue, Leslie Patternson, and Mary Ann Van Tassell. Newark, de: International Reading Association. Wells, G., and G. L. Chang-Wells. 1992. Constructing Knowledge Together. Portsmouth, n h: Heinemann.

31656_Clausen-black.indd 122

20-06-11 13:19

7 Grassroots, Pioneers, Indigenization, and More Why Action Research Just Makes Good Sense in Saskatchewan Sheena Koops

introduction

In 2017, Saskatchewan’s Dr Stirling McDowell Foundation for Research into Teaching celebrated twenty-five years of supporting and nurturing teacher-led research. It is no wonder that this one-ofa-kind Canadian institution should have sprung up in Saskatchewan where grassroots, community-led research is still springing up in the name of social justice, indigenization, and much, much more formal and informal action research and participatory action research. With strong support at the University of Regina and the University of Saskatchewan, action research, in its many forms, promises to continue cycling through Saskatchewan communities where questioning, acting, reflecting, and starting-all-over-again is everyone’s birthright. This chapter will follow the president of the Dr Stirling McDowell Foundation for Research into Teaching – a Saskatchewan classroom teacher and researcher herself – as she digs into grassroots, pioneers, and indigenization, all the while considering why action research just makes good sense within her province and beyond. disclaimer

Grassroots and pioneers are the stuff Saskatchewan is made of – well – the stuff our colonial-settler mythologies have grown on this land.

31656_Clausen-black.indd 123

20-06-11 13:19

124

Sheena Koops

Dwayne Donald (2012) might include this scenario as part of his Colonial Frontier Logics, in this case where grassroots movements and pioneers are insiders and Indigenous peoples are outsiders. “The overriding assumption at work in this logic is that Aboriginal peoples and Canadians inhabit separate realities. The intention is to deny relationality” (Donald 2012, 91). When I say grassroots, I want to invoke the land, our social movements, and a future where relationality is at the root of Indigenous and non-Indigenous coexistence. When I say pioneer, I want to selfidentify (and confess) pioneer-as-colonial but seek the season of pioneer-as-unsettled. Indigenization is also a problematic term. How can a white, settler descendent add to the conversation around indigenization? But here I go. I use the term indigenization as a way of privileging Indigenous ways of knowing and being, as I’m learning through my relationships with Indigenous peoples and academic reading. I also use the term indigenization as a means of unsettling the settler-colonial, myself included, as Paulette Regan (2011) taught me to say in the title of her ground-breaking book, “unsettling the settler within.” There is one more thing to declare. I came to action research by doing action research, so I ask your forgiveness if I talk about ar as though she is my auntie or my big sister. I know all about her, informally, but who really knows anybody, and what is being revealed and what is being concealed when we try to name her “soul within”? As Tennyson (1850) says, “I sometimes hold it half a sin / To put in words the grief I feel: / For words, like Nature, half reveal / And half conceal the Soul within” (lines 109–12). grassroots

I was born in Lampman in small-town Saskatchewan. Before I was the age of one, we moved to Regina, named for Queen Victoria but first called Pile of Bones by the newcomers whose appearance on the Great Plains coincided with the near extinction of the buffalo. Bones became piles of bones. Bones sent to England became bone china, as Dana Claxton (1997) showcases in her experimental video Buffalo Bone China and I chip-away-at in this Treaty Walks blogpost: “I do remember (Kete-ayah/Elder) Alma saying a few words about the slaughtering of the buffalo, and that glimpse into her worldview has stayed with me, the suffering of not only her people, but the suffering of this great animal which was tied in all ways to her peoples’

31656_Clausen-black.indd 124

20-06-11 13:19



Grassroots, Pioneers, Indigenization, and More 125

wellbeing. No one mentioned that we were eating off china plates and our lips were touching china cups, with colonization on the tips of our tongues” (Koops 2016). When I was little in the Queen City – with Dad taking university classes – we had gone to pow wows, and I even met Chief Dan George and Buffy Sainte Marie. We moved to Weyburn – hometown of Tommy Douglas, the father of medicare and Canada’s most famous pioneering son; cbc said so, so it must be true (Babaluk 2016). We lived in North Weyburn for a few years, my parents teaching at Western Christian College, but before I was in Grade 1, we moved to Macoun, and I grew up on the farm. I remember wandering the fields, looking for traces of the first peoples. (Who let me in on the secret? The land had not been empty.) I built a fire ring in the pasture, but Dad wouldn’t let me light it. Riding my Shetland pony, bareback on the unbroken prairie, I often wondered, “Who were the people who had walked this land?” Three of my cousins had been adopted in the sixties and had Native heritage. We played cowboys and Indians. Even when I got my high-stepping Arabian mare, I still rode bareback, thinking it was more Indian. I walked barefoot, learning to push the wheatgrasses, porcupine grass, needle and thread grass to act as a carpet, protecting me from the wild rose thorn bushes under each step. My mom’s parents are buried under prairie wool in Blooming with Grandma’s Norwegian family. My dad’s parents are buried in Estevan with the Scots-Irish Muirheads. With each generation, we dig deeper and deeper into this land. pioneers

“In order for the settlers to make a place their home, they must destroy and disappear the Indigenous peoples that live there. Indigenous peoples are those who have creation stories, not colonization stories, about how we/they came to be in a particular place – indeed how we/ they came to be a place” (Tuck and Yang 2012, 6). Story one. When my great-grandmother, Nancy Isobel McDonald, married my great-grandfather, William Davidson Muirhead, the Indigenous people left half a deer in a tree as a wedding gift, near thenames-of-places-we-erased-with-our-names, Macdonald Lake in the Souris Valley near present-day Estevan. Story two. One day, when Grandpa Cecil was a little boy – living on an Ontario farm bordering Thesslon First Nation – Frank

31656_Clausen-black.indd 125

20-06-11 13:19

126

Sheena Koops

Bamageizik, a traditional man, was walking by. He noticed that the boy had ringworm. Mr Bamageizik asked my great-grandfather, Tom, why he wasn’t taking little Cecil to a doctor. My great-grandfather answered that their doctors didn’t know what to do. The elder left and returned with a poultice and wrapped Grandpa’s eyes and bottom. When Frank Bamageizik returned a few days later to remove the bandages, the ringworm was gone. Grandpa would tell this story, and at this point, his eyes would glisten. Frank, you should share this medicine with our doctors, said my great-grandfather. Tom, Frank Bamageizik replied, they’ve taken our land and our livelihood. They’re not taking our medicine, too. Story three. My mom’s mother taught in a one-room schoolhouse in Blooming, Saskatchewan. When the Saskatchewan Teachers’ Federation (stf) was formed in 1933, Grandma most likely was a member, not marrying until 1935, the same year as “[The Saskatchewan] government passed an Act Respecting the Teaching Profession, the first legislation in Canada to require all teachers to be members of the provincial teachers’ organization as a condition of their employment” (Gallen and Quine 2006). When Grandpa Cecil married Grandma Lavine, he also became a teacher. In the late sixties, my parents both joined the stf. In the early 1990s, both my husband and I joined the ranks. We are three-generations-strong. Saskatchewan. Settlers. Teachers. Story four. My mom’s dad, Grandpa Cecil, ran for the newly minted New Democratic Party in 1962 and lost during the fear-filled election after Tommy Douglas had introduced the Medical Care Insurance Bill and Saskatchewan doctors had walked off the job (Larmour 2006). All four of my rural grandparents supported the “social gospel,” a movement that would have utopia – social justice – on earth. Story five. In 1995, my husband and I were hired by Black Lake First Nation, a fly-in Dene community in northern Saskatchewan. We couldn’t find much information about the community. I remember phoning the school and asking about math textbooks. The woman I was speaking with heard my daughter cry in the background. “You’re not bringing a baby into this community, are you?” she said. That was the first of many warnings we received from well-meaning, nonIndigenous people before we went north. i n d i g e n i z at i o n 101

I remember the first night in the community. None of our belongings had arrived. We were alone in an empty house. Then there was a knock

31656_Clausen-black.indd 126

20-06-11 13:19



Grassroots, Pioneers, Indigenization, and More 127

on the door. A man was holding blankets and towels. I remember his long braid, and kids were gathered all around him. This was our welcome to Black Lake. Despite much kindness from students and the community, soon I was in deep culture shock. My students weren’t listening. I didn’t understand mannerisms and actions in this new culture. By Christmas I was surviving but not thriving. Two colleagues, both from the south, both white, approached me to see if I’d be interested in helping them put together a grant application for the Dr Stirling McDowell Foundation for Research into Teaching. “Sure,” I said. We were not successful that first year, but the foundation gave us a small grant to help us rework the proposal, and they suggested that we should have some local community members involved in the application. (The first action research lesson of many more to come.) The next year, neither of these two colleagues remained, but our teacher team grew to include Joyce Mercredi, a Dene colleague from the community, and Ann Alphonse, a white woman from Ontario who had married into the community and learned the language. Our questions were, “What are the traditional teaching methods, content curriculum (skills) and educational values of the Dene in Black Lake? How can these methods, curriculum and values be acknowledged and incorporated into the classroom and school system?” (Alphonse, Koops, and Mercredi 1999). Our proposal was accepted. We built a thirteen-page survey for interviews with youth, adults, and elders; however, as it was being translated into Dene by local people, the elders gave us feedback that some of the questions didn’t make sense and in a few cases, the way we had asked the question was even offensive. Equally poignant was the Dene pushback to our checklist columns when asking if they knew a certain skill. It wasn’t enough to identify, “I know how to … ” but we had to add another column, “I can on my own … ” This was a huge “discovery” of Dene pedagogy, Dene epistemology. Harold Scholtz said, “I am following this project with great interest because what is being undertaken in this study is so unique. Developing a Dene questionnaire is a big undertaking and will truly give the Dene people of Black Lake an opportunity to express their dreams and aspirations for the schooling of their children” (Alphonse, Koops, and Mercredi 1999, 3). Likewise, Earle W. Robertson, executive assistant at the Saskatchewan Teachers’ Federation, wrote for our introduction, “Your

31656_Clausen-black.indd 127

20-06-11 13:19

128

Sheena Koops

project is significant for at least four reasons: It includes the community in a real and meaningful way in defining the content and process of the school program; It demonstrates recognition and cooperation and it develops partnership with the community members; It has the potential to bring meaning, relevance and practical experience into the education of the students; It is a team effort and the project is designed to build on the strengths of each of the team members” (Alphonse, Koops, and Mercredi 1999, 3). Furthermore, we introduced community members who made the following comments. “Closer to home, an 18 year old questionnaire respondent offered this comment, ‘I think the survey was pretty good. It showed me what I should learn to be ready for my children. I should be ready when the time comes to pass my knowledge on to them and hope the best for them.’ Three elders specifically told the interviewers that they were happy to be interviewed and happy to share their wisdom with us. A twenty-two-year-old student made this request: ‘I would appreciate it if you would react to it [the questionnaire] and carry out the plan.’ These strong words not only indicate the importance of the research but the expectation that it includes a mandate for action” (Alphonse, Koops, and Mercredi 1999, 4). By the end of three years, we had three reflections, each of our research voices interpreting one of the cohorts (students, adults, and elders), and we had forty-eight recommendations. We decided to study the implementation of the research. For many reasons, this stage was bumpy, so our final report was called Reflections on Implementing Traditional Dene Teaching Methods, Skills and Values: Success redefined (Alphonse, Koops, and Mercredi 2002). naming action research

In 2000, my family moved south to Wolseley, Saskatchewan, and I began work on my master’s degree at the University of Regina. In the fall of 2001, I took Action Research in Education: Theory and Practice with Dr David W. Friesen. An excerpt from the “course rationale” states, “Action research views theory and practice as integrally related in everyday life, and views research as a living and embodied practice.” For the class, I created “Toward Maintaining a Vulnerable and Real Way of Being in the Classroom: An Action Research Proposal.” My new grade elevens and I planned field trips together, decided to study a second Shakespeare play (because the kids begged, seriously, this

31656_Clausen-black.indd 128

20-06-11 13:19



Grassroots, Pioneers, Indigenization, and More 129

happened), and we wandered Regina like the crew from the Magic school bus, looking for Louis Riel’s statue and finding it, by accident, at the public library, his words painted on the walls, “My people will sleep for one hundred years, but when they awake, it will be the artists who give them their spirit back” (Manitoba Metis Federation [1885] 2016). While researching in the north, we had attended the McDowell annual conference, Learning from Practice, almost every year, but when I moved south, I lost touch. However, in 2011 I received an invitation to the McDowell’s twentieth anniversary and specifically to be part of a roundtable discussion. I remember listening to other researchers tell my story, how action research had brought light into their classrooms, altered school climate, blossomed relationships in the community, changed researchers personally and professionally, advanced careers, and been a great introduction to further academic research. When it was my turn to speak, I said that the McDowell Foundation – action research – saved my teacher soul. It took me from a grassroots idealist who was becoming disillusioned and had given me a way to become part of the community. In “McDowell Research Involvement Has Profound Effect,” the Saskatchewan Bulletin (2011b) quoted me saying, “McDowell gave me the confidence to explore and understand complex issues. The experience reinvented me when I really needed it as a teacher and it gave me a pattern I’ve often returned to.” i n d i g e n i z at i o n 102

Story one. When I began my master’s work at the University of Regina, I began to learn about white-constructed identity and white privilege. I finished my master’s thesis, “Blue Eyes Remembering toward Anti-racist Pedagogy” (Koops 2007) as I reflected on my time on- and off-reserve as a white woman. Story two. It wasn’t until 2007 when the Saskatchewan government made it mandatory curriculum that I first heard about Treaty Education (Saskatchewan Ministry of Education, 2013). In the summer of 2011, an Artist’s Way (Cameron 1992) inspired thought would not let me go. In my morning pages, I wrote, “I should get in better shape. I should walk to school, and as I walk, I will meditate on the Treaties.” I walked to and from school every day the buses ran for 200 days, meditating and blogging about the treaties – practising

31656_Clausen-black.indd 129

20-06-11 13:19

130

Sheena Koops

informal action research – questioning, acting, reflecting over and over. This became my Treaty Walks. Story three. I have learned to tell our family’s settler story this way: Three of my four grandparents’ families immigrated to Treaty Four, traditional lands of the Nakawē (Saulteaux), Nehiyawak (Cree), Dakota, Lakota, and Nakota Nations and the homelands of the Métis. Both of my grandmothers were Norwegian, immigrating via the northern United States in the early 1900s; my father’s father’s people emigrated from Ireland in the late 1800s. My mother’s father’s Ontario clan immigrated to Canada from Ireland and England into the Robinson Huron Peace and Friendship Treaty, homelands to Ojibway peoples, in the mid-1800s. Story four. University of Regina’s Dr Shauneen Pete and Dr Michael Cappello have helped me to think about indigenization through two questions that I have adapted from their 2014 keynote address at the University of Regina’s sa f e (Social Justice and Anti-Racist, AntiOppressive Forum on Education) Conference: “What do I need to do to begin to accept the gifts that First Nations and Metis people offer me? How will I let these gifts change my assumptions about anti-racism work?” I became mindful, accepting the gifts I was being offered, daily, in my classroom and community. These gifts, and accepting the gifts mindfully, have changed me and my practice as an educator. Story five. The concept of indigenization has been floating around our McDowell boardroom for two years. Fellow board member Belinda Daniels, winner of the Aboriginal Research Excellence Award and a top-fifty finalist in the Global Teacher Prize, says on her twitter bio, “Nehiyaw iskwew with an arrow or 2 … Enthusiastic about Indigenization, landbased education and language preservation” (Daniels 2017). With a second Indigenous board member, Darren Bird, making our board 20 per cent Indigenous, we are slightly over Saskatchewan’s Indigenous population at approximately 16 per cent (Statistics Canada 2017). There is a will on the McDowell board in 2016 to “accept the gifts Indigenous peoples are offering” (Cappello and Pete 2014) as we interrupt and strengthen our institution, exploring the opportunity, the responsibility, of indigenization. action research just makes good sense i n   s a s k at c h e wa n

In October 2014, after the safe gathering at the University of Regina, we held a teacher’s roundtable. People were feeling moved to action,

31656_Clausen-black.indd 130

20-06-11 13:19



Grassroots, Pioneers, Indigenization, and More 131

but they didn’t know what to do next. I remember that Dr Shauneen Pete encouraged us to become researchers and to check out the McDowell Foundation. I sat a little taller. I had been on the board since 2012 and had just become president at our last meeting. Later that spring, Dr Michael Cappello and the newly forming u r s tars (University of Regina Student and Teacher Anti-Racist/Anti-Oppressive Society) drove out to Fort Qu’Appelle to visit my classroom and take a Treaty Walk. Raquel Bellefleur (2014) documented the trip on her blog. We had lunch together, and Dr Cappello told these young teachers-in-the-making about the McDowell Foundation, and I said, “Hey, I’m the president.” I pulled out grant applications I just happened to have in my briefcase. The University of Saskatchewan also has an action research champion, Michelle Prytula, dean of the College of Education. She “has remained a staunch advocate of not only the Foundation, but also the notion of action research which, while perhaps shunned by some academics, she has previously stressed to teachers is not lesser research” (Saskatchewan Bulletin 2014a). The stf executive assistant, Tish Karpa, said, “This [McDowell research] is important to publicly funded education overall, not just as professional development for the teacher but for the uniqueness of education in Saskatchewan and the way it can meet unique needs of students” (Saskatchewan Bulletin 2011b). On the other hand, Saskatchewan has not been immune to threats against local curriculum and teacher autonomy despite our research leadership, evidenced in the McDowell Foundation, as when standardized testing loomed a few years ago. Thankfully, “Plans to introduce standardized testing have been put on pause here in Saskatchewan after calls from concerned parents, teachers, and other stakeholders pointed out the complete lack of ministry consultation” (Spooner and Orlowski 2013). It was from an enviable position that the ­Saskatchewan Teachers’ Federation could point to the Dr Stirling McDowell Foundation for Education into Teaching and tell the public that we are professionals; we have our own research; we can create our own solutions using our own data. “Standardized testing is a pedagogical tool that makes the most sense to those who are the farthest removed from actual classrooms and actual students. The dedicated teachers in each of Canada’s provinces and territories already conduct continuous assessment and evaluations of every student daily and over the course of the entire school year. Such mandatory audits and lean management schemes applied to education might, at first

31656_Clausen-black.indd 131

20-06-11 13:19

132

Sheena Koops

glance, sound good until one realizes they are based on financial checks and car manufacturing approaches” (Spooner and Orlowski 2013). In the 12 March 2014 edition of the Saskatchewan Bulletin, the front-page headline read, “Robinson, Sahlberg agree that Saskatchewan could be leader.” A picture shows Sir Ken Robinson and Pasi Sahlberg sitting together in front of 3,000 Saskatchewan teachers, “which marked the first time the two have ever appeared together on stage.” Sir Ken Robinson, a “California-based creativity expert … argues that too many school systems privilege standardization and conformity over customization and diversity” (c b c News 2013). He points out that “the current system of education was designed and conceived for a different age.” Pasi Sahlberg is “one of Finland’s foremost thinkers on education reform … Underpinning the Finnish approach to education is the notion that school should be a place of self-discovery and personal development” (c b c News 2013). “Both educators eschew the current international education trend toward standardized testing practices and policies based strictly on what they term an Industrial Age model, as they share an overall desire for profound transformation” (Saskatchewan Bulletin 2014b) The Saskatchewan Bulletin (2014b). quotes Sahlberg saying, “This [Saskatchewan] is one of the few places where there is real potential to be able to make that breakthrough” and quotes Robinson adding, “There are many positive signs in Saskatchewan and if you can get it to work here, then this could be a sort of laboratory for change … there is a chance to create a sort of beacon here.” As Saskatchewan takes a page from Sahlberg’s Finnish Lessons in building a world-leading education environment with the highest respect for educators who have autonomy as professionals to direct their own professional development and curriculum, we can take some confidence that we are on the right track when gurus like Robinson and Sahlberg pat us on the back. Likewise, the McDowell Foundation and proponents of action research can be confident that they, that we, are part of that transformation. Tish Karpa says, “It [McDowell Foundation] is so unique in Canada, and it elevates the status of the teaching profession.” t h e f u t u r e o f t h e m c d o w e l l f o u n d at i o n i n   s a s k at c h e wa n e d u c at i o n

To get a glimpse of the future of the McDowell Foundation in Saskatchewan, I can take a glimpse at the past. For twenty-five years,

31656_Clausen-black.indd 132

20-06-11 13:19



Grassroots, Pioneers, Indigenization, and More 133

almost 1,000 teacher-researchers have addressed concerns, issues, and challenges on a diverse spectrum of topics and subject areas within Saskatchewan education. We have supported more than 250 projects, benefitting hundreds of communities and thousands of students. We have responded routinely to cutting-edge and timely issues in education. Stirling McDowell, the namesake of the organization, set that example: sitting “On numerous boards, committees, and commissions, he provided valuable leadership with a sound sense of history and a mind fearless in the breaking of new ground. Few people could match his encyclopedic knowledge of Saskatchewan communities and the province’s political and educational history. His clear analysis and deep insight into complex situations made him much in demand as a speaker, not only provincially, but also nationally and internationally” (ac er-ca rt 2015). It is no wonder, then, as McDowell celebrated its twenty-fifth ­anniversary and as we planned events, that we were happy to use this  opportunity to offer solidarity, expertise, and leadership as Saskatchewan educators answer the Calls to Action as presented by the Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada (2015). As we celebrated our twenty-fifth anniversary in February 2017, Charlene Bearhead, education lead with the Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada, presented the keynote address (Saskatchewan Teachers’ Federation 2017). So, what is the future of the McDowell Foundation? Just as Saskatchewan teacher-researchers have met the realities in their education circles, as president of the foundation I continue to dream too. What would education look like if society trusted teacher professionals to produce their own, locally grown, grassroots research? What would education look like if teachers were encouraged to identify issues, problems, opportunities and then felt free to dream, create, and innovate through research? What would Canada look like if our institutions shared power with those who are most vulnerable? Gave voice to the marginalized? Walked together, learning from each other? What if we were pioneers in indigenization? Although I am mindful that not every McDowell Foundation research project uses action research as its primary or pure methodology, I do argue that each project is informed by the philosophy of action research, which permeates the foundation from board policy to guidelines within the application process to collaborative circles of support. Action research was highlighted at the 2014 McDowell Foundation Learning from Practice Conference as Dr Kurt Clausen

31656_Clausen-black.indd 133

20-06-11 13:19

134

Sheena Koops

delivered an engaging and challenging keynote address. On the Saskatchewan Teachers’ Federation website, they gave action research context to the conference: “Action research is a process of intentional problem solving or curiosity to learn more about an area of professional interest through reflecting on practice, and possibly implementing changes, while documenting actions and results to share with others” (2014). Furthermore, networking with Dr Clausen has renewed the relationship between the McDowell Foundation and action research as highlighted by the Saskatchewan Teachers’ Federation’s profile of Dr Clausen on the website. “Taking on the role of editor of the Ontario Action Researcher in 2001, he has since helped to expand its role as the chief outlet for the publication of action research across the country. This culminated in the launch of the Canadian Journal of Action Research in 2011. In the past year, he has helped found the Canadian Association of Action Research in Education in order to create a network of communication, mentorship and encouragement between individuals and teams who are engaged in action research” (2014). Whether formal action research or not, Karpa explains that “the [(McDowell] projects … are particularly relevant because they have been teacher led” (Saskatchewan Bulletin 2011b). claiming our roots

Teacher-led research, including all forms of action research, formal and informal, allows us not only to meet our professional responsibilities but to be part of the continued nurturing of our relationships on this land. Through our practice and our grassroots research, educators are leaders. We are pioneers in that we can be first on the scene but also unsettled-pioneers, dispelling myths of terra nullius and other “pioneering” mythology. We can learn our Treaty responsibilities and what is lost because of unimplemented Treaty promises. For example, this past summer, making a pilgrimage to Weyburn and taking a photo shoot at the Tommy Douglas statue, I thought about the Treaties and realized that if the Treaties had been honoured, the 1876 Treaty 6 medicine chest clause would have set the norm of universal health care almost 100 years before Tommy fought for it. Like the introduction of medicare on the Canadian scene, I would dream of our province, from our grassroots and prairie beauty, as a national leader, promoting social justice, promoting indigenization, promoting truth and reconciliation, promoting a vision of Canada as

31656_Clausen-black.indd 134

20-06-11 13:19



Grassroots, Pioneers, Indigenization, and More 135

set for us in the Treaties. And at the same time, I foresee utilizing the strengths and callings of our educators to seek out every opportunity where there is a “need for change” or a “social and political responsibility associated with membership in the community” (Saskatchewan Teachers’ Federation 2016). I look at my own experience in Black Lake, Treaty 8 territory, a community vibrant and resilient, a community also suffering from our shared legacy of colonization. Through action research, I was able to become part of the community, share power, find voices; we were able to listen to each other. Before I knew the terms unsettling, decolonizing, and indigenizing, action research already had me on the path of truth (listening and learning) and reconciliation (sharing power and indigenizing). In the spring of 2016, when I knew I would be teaching an adult 12 program – all Indigenous youth – at our high school, I went to Keteayah Alma of Peepeekisis First Nation to ask for a name. She took the tobacco to her lodge, and in the fall gave us the name “oski-­ pimohtahtamwak otayisīniwiwaw,” which she translated for us: “they are into their new journey to knowledge.” Kete-ayah Alma explained to me that I can be the students’ helper; I can open doors, but it is important that this is their journey, they are not to be restricted on this, their journey of a lifetime, walking it, living it, their whole being making their way forward. All of us involved, school administration, parents, and elders, are part of this cycle, this circle, as each student is walking his or her own circle, as Kete-ayah Alma illustrated when she first wrote the name in my journal, drawing a circle, showing that these young people are beginning adulthood (Poitras 2016). When I dig in deep to my own grassroots, when I examine pioneering Treaty stories, when I open my world view to accepting the gifts of the peoples from this land, I realize this is me, circling through my own action research cycle – questioning, acting, reflecting – which I have utilized my entire career as a classroom teacher. This is me and my grassroots. and more: the future of action research

I called this piece “Grassroots, Pioneers, Indigenization and More: Why Action Research Just Makes Good Sense in Saskatchewan,” and it’s probably time for one last confession. I often begin a project with a title, and usually I don’t know what it means until the very end. I

31656_Clausen-black.indd 135

20-06-11 13:19

136

Sheena Koops

knew I was being cheeky, like I was marketing action research and the superiority of Saskatchewan, but as I work on edits, I have just read Dr Marc Spooner’s 2018 work, “Qualitative Research and Global Audit Culture: The Politics of Productivity, Accountability, and Possibility,” and I realize, as I continue teaching in the school system and beginning my PhD at the University of Regina, that I am very much living in an audit culture world. “Yet, just as the enticing possibilities invite us to broaden and deepen our scholarship in ways unimagined a decade before, a parallel counterbalancing shift toward a ubiquitous neoliberal and accountability-focused culture – both in the academy and in society – imperils every new opportunity” (Spooner 2018, 898). My marketing move “and more” fits into the neoliberal mood that we are always upgrading, working harder, smarter, faster, longer, and this can only make things better. Indeed, my title sounds like advertising, whereby we can put spin on the deeply complex and loaded terms of “grassroots, pioneers, and indigenization”. Go, Riders, Go, as we might cheer in Saskatchewan. I have my own homework to do in this department, starting with a re-read of “Decolonization is not a metaphor” (Tuck and Yang 2012). After a first-read of Tuck and Yang, I critique the beginning of this paper, my own grassroots pioneer stories, stepping so innocently guilty on this land, even as I espouse indigenization. “We provide this framework so that we can be more impatient with each other, less likely to accept gestures and half-steps, and more willing to press for acts which unsettle innocence” (Tuck and Yang 2012, 10). As a McDowell board, we have begun branding our research as “teacher-led” rather than action research in a response to Saskatchewan teachers sometimes having a negative reaction to the term action research, which – as I understand – is sometimes being used in a topdown, professional development model within school divisions, or, worse yet, action research is being made to fit into metrics and measurements rather than the research participants following where the research cycle takes them. I have no data on this, only hearsay and my own gut-intuition, my fear being “the audit culture tail wagging the research dog” (Spooner 2018, 895). I worry that we will lose our connections to the potential of grassroots, participatory action research. I worry that settler-colonial-minded-teacher pioneers will colonize action research, finding it too wild and in need of taming. I worry that people like me will keep trying to indigenize without sharing any power, let alone losing power. “Decolonization is not accountable to

31656_Clausen-black.indd 136

20-06-11 13:19



Grassroots, Pioneers, Indigenization, and More 137

settlers, or settler futurity. Decolonization is accountable to Indigenous sovereignty and futurity” (Tuck and Yang 2012, 35). This brings me, finally, to unpacking the “good sense” in the subtitle, “Why action research just makes good sense in Saskatchewan.” Given my readings of Donald (2012) and Tuck and Yang (2012), I now believe this “good sense” is a hope-statement rather than a reality-statement. I will state, for the record here, that “good sense” is a settler move (my move) towards innocence (Tuck and Yang 2012), and therefore I ask us all to enter into resisting the “good sense” of our colonial past and present. Rather, I hope for the “good sense” that could be our action research moving forward, with relationality (Donald 2012) built into all aspects of the journey. As unsettled Saskatchewan citizens wake up to Treaty relatives, Treaty rights, and Treaty responsibilities, I do believe there is much hope for us as grassroots peoples. When I visit my mom, she reminds me that “root” in Latin is “radix” as in the “root” of “radical.” Saskatchewan’s own Dr Marc Spooner says, “Let us meet where the present horizon intersects collective will and wild imagination; there, toward the radical politics of possibility: subversive, defiant, critical, and most important, full of hope” (2018, 910). Grassroots education, grassroots research, will morph and sprout and even be considered radical by some, but how else can we answer the call? The calls to action? This is radical research, in a good way, in a prairie-grassy-rootsy-way.

references

ac e r- c art. 2015. Dr. Stirling McDowell. 2015. Accessed 5 November 2017. http://acer-cart.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/05/McDowellStirling-CV-Eng.pdf. Alphonse, Ann, Sheena Koops, and Joyce Mercredi. 1999. Dreams and Involvement: A Black Lake Quest for 2000. Saskatoon, sk : Dr Stirling McDowell Foundation for Research into Teaching. – 2002. Reflections on Implementing Traditional Dene Teaching Methods, Skills and Values: Success Redefined. Saskatoon, sk : Dr Stirling McDowell Foundation for Research into Teaching. Babaluk, Niel. 2010. “History Idol: Tommy Douglas ‘The Father of Medicare’ Turned a Tory on Her Head.” March. Canada’s History Magazine. Accessed 15 September 2016. http://www.canadashistory.ca/Magazine/ Online-Exclusive/Articles/History-Idol--Tommy-Douglas.aspx.

31656_Clausen-black.indd 137

20-06-11 13:19

138

Sheena Koops

Bellefleur, Racquel. 2014. Professional portfolio blog. Accessed 15 September 2016. https://raquelbellefleurportfolio.wordpress. com/2014/10/11/reflections-on-a-field-trip. Cameron, Julia. 1992. The Artist’s Way: A Spiritual Path to Higher Creativity. Los Angeles, ca: Jeremy P. Tarcher/Perigee. Cappello, Mike, and Shauneen Pete. 2014. Keynote address. University of Regina safe Conference. University of Regina, Regina, sk . c b c News. 2013. “Should Canada Take Lessons from Finland’s Approach to Education.” Your Community Blog, 18 February. http://www.cbc.ca/ newsblogs/yourcommunity/2013/02/finnish-lessons.html. Claxton, Dana. 1997. “Buffalo Bone China.” Mackenzie Art Gallery, Regina, s k. Accessed 30 September 2016. http://www.mackenzieart​ ­gallery.ca/engage/exhibitions/dana-claxton-buffalo-bone-china. Daniels, Belinda. Twitter profile found at https://twitter.com/belinda​ ­daniels9. Accessed 5 November 2017. Donald, Dwayne. 2012. “Forts, Colonial Frontier Logics, and AboriginalCanadian Relations: Imagining Decolonizing Educational Philosophies in Canadian Contexts.” In Decolonizing Philosophies of Education, edited by A.A. Abdi, 91–111. Rotterdam, Netherlands: Sense Publishers. Gallen, Verna, and Bill Quine. 2006. “Saskatchewan Teachers’ Federation.” Canadian Plains Research Centre. Accessed 11 September 2016. http:// esask.uregina.ca/entry/saskatchewan_teachers_federation.html. Koops, Sheena. 2007. “Blue Eyes Remembering toward Anti-Racist Pedagogy.” Master’s thesis, University of Regina. – 2016. “Reading Bone China as Historical Text: An Unsettling Tea Party.” Treaty Walks (blog), 7 July 2016. http://treatywalks.blogspot. ca/2016/07/reading-bone-china-as-historical-texts.html. Larmour, Jean. 2006. “Saskatchewan Doctors’ Strike.” The Canadian Encyclopedia, 7 February. http://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.ca/en/ article/saskatchewan-doctors-strike. Poitras, Alma. 2016. Personal communication. Journal Notes. Manitoba Metis Federation. [1885] 2016. Louis Riel quotes. Accessed 11 September 2016. http://www.mmf.mb.ca/louis_riel_quotes.php. Regan, Paulette. 2011. Unsettling the Settler Within: Indian Residential Schools, Truth Telling, and Reconciliation in Canada. Vancouver, b c : ub c Press. Sahlberg, Pasi, and Andy Hargreaves. 2011. Finnish Lessons: What Can the World Learn from Educational Change in Finland? New York, ny: Teachers College Press.

31656_Clausen-black.indd 138

20-06-11 13:19



Grassroots, Pioneers, Indigenization, and More 139

Saskatchewan Bulletin. 2011a. “McDowell Foundation Set to Embark on New Future.” 78(4), 1. – 2011b. “McDowell Research Involvement Has Profound Effect.” 78(4), 1. – 2014a. “Prytula’s Passion for Research Helps Lead Path to Dean’s Office.” 20 June, 3. – 2014b. “Robinson, Sahlberg Agree That Saskatchewan Could Be Leader.” 12 March, 1. Saskatchewan Ministry of Education. 2013. “Ed Online.” Accessed 10 September 2016. https://www.edonline.sk.ca/bbcswebdav/library/ materials/english/docs/Treaty Education Outcomes and Indicators – Feb 21 2013.pdf. Saskatchewan Teachers’ Federation. 2016. “Code of Ethics.” Accessed 11 September 2016. https://www.stf.sk.ca/resource/code-ethics. – 2017. “McDowell Foundation Plans to Celebrate 25 Years of Teacher Led Research.” This Is the Classroom. Accessed 11 September 2017 http://thisistheclassroom.ca/mcdowell-foundation-plans-celebrate25-years-supporting-teacher-research/#.Wf_gv-aouhc. Saskatchewan Teachers’ Federation website. 2014. https://www.stf.sk.ca/ about-stf/news/teachers-share-inspiring-classroom-based-researchexperiences-0. – n.d. “Teacher/Practitioner/Action Research.” Accessed 5 November 2017. https://www.stf.sk.ca/­professional-resources/stewart-resourcescentre/resources/related-links/teacherpractitioneraction. Spooner, Marc. 2018. “Qualitative Research and Global Audit Culture: The Politics of Productivity, Accountability, and Possibility.” In The sage Handbook of Qualitative Research, edited by N.K. Denzin and Y.S. Lincoln, 5th ed., 894–914. Thousand Oaks, c a : Sage. Spooner, Marc, and Paul Orlowski. 2013. “Standardized Testing (Almost) Comes to Saskatchewan: How Being Proactive Can Lead to Positive Results (for Now …).” Our Schools/Our Selves. Viewpoints. https:// www.policyalternatives.ca/sites/default/files/uploads/publications/ National%20Office/2013/11/osos113_StandardizedTestingComes ToSK.pdf. Statistics Canada. 2017. Saskatchewan [province] and Canada [country] (table). Census Profile. 2016 Census. Statistics Canada Catalogue no. 98-316-X2016001. Released 25 October 2017. http://www12.­ statcan.gc.ca/census-recensement/2016/dp-pd/prof/index.cfm? Lang=E.

31656_Clausen-black.indd 139

20-06-11 13:19

140

Sheena Koops

Tennyson, Alfred. 1850. In memoriam A.H.H. Canto 5. Lines 109–12. Accessed 5 November 2017. http://www.online-literature.com/ tennyson/718. Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada. 2015. “Findings: Calls to Action.” http://www.trc.ca/websites/trcinstitution/File/2015/Findings/ Calls_to_Action_English2.pdf. Tuck, Elizabeth, and K. Wayne Yang. 2012. “Decolonization Is Not a Metaphor.” Decolonization: Indigeneity, Education and Society 1(1), 1–40.

31656_Clausen-black.indd 140

20-06-11 13:19

8 Suicide Is (Never) Painless Teachers’ Experiences on the Edge of Life and Death Peter Gouzouasis and Anita Prest

prelude

In the present inquiry, we initially sought to examine how music teacher backgrounds impact their broader curricular and pedagogical decisions. While there has been an increasing call by some scholars for music educators to provide the widest range of musical experiences in schools and community contexts, a potential obstacle to such an appeal may stem from the fact that many teachers may neither musically nor personally identify with a music curriculum and pedagogy that is either culturally responsive or globally informed (Abril 2009; Legette 2003). Moreover, we recognize the unusually wide discrepancy between research and classroom practice in music teaching, as well as in the ways that traditional music education research is written. We posit that for educators to even consider a more inclusive definition of musicianship and musicking (Small 1998), they must first develop an awareness of the ways in which their own musical identities intersect with, affect, and change their teaching. That perspective, and the notion that research needs to be written in more meaningful and accessible ways to reach a wider audience, may make it possible to link the ways that we have traditionally viewed teacher identities with more contemporary ways of doing research with hybrid forms of arts-based action research. Research has generally focused on the ways that identities of musicians are shaped by social relationships and how “the processes and

31656_Clausen-black.indd 141

20-06-11 13:19

142

Peter Gouzouasis and Anita Prest

mechanisms by which individuals monitor and conceptualize their own musical development” influence the development of musical skills (MacDonald, Hargreaves, and Miell 2002, 7). Both sociological and psychological notions of identity have informed studies on music teacher identity (Conkling 2004; Dolloff 2007; Lee 2004; Roberts 2000; Woodford 2002). Abramo (2009) investigated the discourses that shape music teachers’ identity construction, while Lee (2005a; 2005b; 2006a; 2006b; 2006c; 2007; 2008; 2009) has examined the conflicts between musician and teacher identities and the roles that storytelling plays in mediating those kinds of conflicts. Gray (2011) studied the impact of changing jobs on music teacher identity. In a similar vein, Dawe (2007) suggested that music education researchers should study the ways in which the “personal and professional elements of teachers’ lives intersect, overlap, and contradict” (42). In recent years, a handful of scholars have conducted research on the influence of music teachers’ backgrounds (including, but not ­limited to, their musical and teaching identities) on their attitudes and experiences teaching in a K-12 urban environment (Doyle 2012), perceptions of creativity (Odena and Welch 2007), and choral warm-up philosophy (Olesen 2010). Nethsinghe (2012) and Schindler (2009) used an autobiographical approach to highlight the influence of their musical journeys on their new vocations of teaching music in higher education. However, no one has examined how music teachers’ backgrounds have impacted their broader curricular and pedagogical decisions. Studies on the influence of teacher background on classroom teaching and learning have been conducted with regard to science (Osborne 1998), history (Romanowski 1997), English (Skerrett 2008), and multicultural (Smith 2000) curricula. research approach a n d u n a n t i c i pat e d d i r e c t i o n s

We engaged in hour-long, semi-structured, interview conversations with forty volunteer secondary music teachers in a large metropolitan area in western Canada comprising several municipalities and school districts. As researchers who are former K-12 music teachers, we are uniquely positioned to conduct research in the K-12 arena because we have an intimate, experiential awareness of the day-to-day lives of music teachers, are knowledgeable about local issues affecting music education, and have many professional acquaintances with K-12 music teachers who work in the metropolitan area.

31656_Clausen-black.indd 142

20-06-11 13:19



Teachers’ Experiences on the Edge of Life and Death 143

All the teachers taught in public schools (school populations ranged from 600 to 1,800) and had between one and forty-two years of experience in teaching music. Some specialized in band, choir, or orchestra, while others taught a broad variety of music classes, including guitar, marimba, music composition and technology, and drumming (drum line and African drumming). Our aim was to gain insights into the diversity of courses offered across schools and the actual content of those courses and to highlight music educators’ teaching philosophies, beliefs, and practices – as well as their educational background and professional experiences. We were primarily interested in how their backgrounds and experiences influenced the development of their music programs, course listings, course content, and curriculum planning. Thus, we talked with the teachers around a range of questions that pertained to their musical, educational, and personal backgrounds, as well as their curricular and pedagogical approaches. As is common in informally structured interviews, teachers often use stories to illustrate their points. In the process, we encountered many teacher stories that were related to our own lived experiences. Rather than ignore or stifle our own memories, as well as those of our teacher colleagues, we chose to engage in self-reflexive practice (Etherington 2004). One particular conversation went in a very personal direction – a confessional tale we have composed in a creative non-fictional style of a teacher who shared a particularly difficult story of his five-year journey with a music student whose adverse personal circumstances were revealed to him over time through her unusual behaviours and reactions. Her revelations to him, and her suicidal behaviour, ultimately caused him to personally intervene on her behalf, setting off a chain of events that seriously altered both of their lives. Given the topical content of the conversation that inspired the present story, and since the ramifications of conversations with students who struggle in life and interventions may be problematic without professional counselling expertise, we have given our colleague and learner, whom we refer to as “Jim” and “Suzie,” respectively, sufficient anonymity through the writing practice of autoethnography (Ellis 2004). i teach more than

“just”

music

As a music teacher, I felt that I wasn’t able to help the kids in ways that I wanted, mostly with their extra-musical needs. How do you get in touch with expressing yourself and finding how to put your own self into making music? This has got to be very personal for kids. They

31656_Clausen-black.indd 143

20-06-11 13:19

144

Peter Gouzouasis and Anita Prest

need to be able to feel that they’re able to express themselves. Senior concert band has ninety kids, so it’s pretty easy to feel like a faceless member of the horde. To get a better understanding of group dynamics – recognizing and learning to read emotional states a little better and trying to be more sensitive to individual kids – I decided to do a master’s in counselling psychology. Reading a group dynamic, who your dominant people are, the less dominant ones, how the group interacts with each other – that’s important to me. Stuff that I learned about self-esteem was huge in that I came to understand how less successful students can borrow a little bit from the more skilled students’ accomplishments to help themselves feel a little bit better. That, in turn, increases their motivation and helps them, hopefully, maybe work a little bit harder and ultimately improve their musicianship. So they get the self-esteem bump from the overall level of the group. I’m really not a fan of “low marks motivate students to do more.” Learners develop the feeling that they’re part of something that, overall, is positive. You can belong to something negative or something positive. I look at my rehearsals as a chance to try to increase kids’ self-esteem and then, I hope, motivate them to be more successful and really contribute to the group’s success. Music’s the hook. If it were merely all about the music, I would have tried to work at the university level, but that’s not what I’m about. I like working with this age group. One of the best things about this job, in an 8–12 school of this size, is that I teach them every year and some of them spend six hours a week with me from Grade 8 all the way to Grade 12. Between me and my other music teacher colleagues, we’re the only constant adults in their life throughout high school. They have the same counsellor, but they only see them three times a year. I think I’m in a unique, very privileged position. One of the things that I value about my job is the constant contact with kids all the way through five years of pretty important times, whether good or bad, and getting to walk beside them on the path to graduation. It’s a beautiful part of our growth as people. There isn’t a day that passes when I don’t think about that process. I’ll give you an example of what I mean. There was a young lady, Suzie, who came to us in Grade 8. She was very shy but just a real bright penny – always had a smile and trying her best. In Grade 9, she said she wanted to talk to me about

31656_Clausen-black.indd 144

20-06-11 13:19



Teachers’ Experiences on the Edge of Life and Death 145

some personal issues because she felt safe in my class. She came in at lunchtime with her friend. She explained that her mom was going through cancer treatment and her brother was acting out by acting violently toward their mother. He was ten. He was really hard to manage and would punch his mom. And so she entered into an agreement with her brother that he would not bother their mom if she allowed him to punch her. And so Suzie would silently take the punishment whenever he wanted so that the mom could sleep and rest. In Grade 10, she was super keen, volunteering, spending a lot of time here, not going home. But she became fairly dark, in her clothing and everything. In Grade 11 she quietly approached me on a band trip, concerned that a young friend of her homestay family might have possibly raped her. But her memories of the event were vague and disjointed. She said that it occurred when she was asleep. At this point, I’m thinking roofies – he slipped her something. So we got her a tox screen, but it was negative. Of course, we involved the local police and dealt with the parents. We got a weird vibe from the parents, and they decided to press charges. Soon thereafter, she’s hanging around my room all the time. At one point, I was working at my desk, and she had crawled underneath it. I had been sitting there for a half-hour and didn’t even know she was there. And she would skip out of her classes and curl up in a corner in the band room, and no one would even know she was there. Finally, one of the administrators told her that she wasn’t allowed into the band room unless she had a class. It really upset her. Then Suzie writes me a note at the end of the year. “This is like when – I don’t know what happened, I don’t know why I fell asleep. It’s like when my brother beat me up. Remember when my mom had cancer, when my brother would beat me up? I would just kind of go away in my head.” And then the penny drops. She’s disassociating, right? So I phone home to discuss with her parents the possibility that this is what may have happened on the band trip. To my surprise, they said they didn’t want to discuss the matter any further. So at this point, I’m starting to realize something’s not right. Grade 12 begins, and she’s hanging around the band room again. “You know what? If you want to talk about something, you just need to tell me.” “No, I have something to tell you, but I can’t tell you,” she replied. This went on for a couple of weeks.

31656_Clausen-black.indd 145

20-06-11 13:19

146

Peter Gouzouasis and Anita Prest

“Look, I suspect what I think you’re going to tell me,” I say, “and I can’t keep this secret. I have to take my suspicions forward.” And that’s what I did. What I learned later was she’d been sexually assaulted, probably from the age of five. The sexual offences squad guys told me that they do this for a living and this was a once-in-alifetime case. Like, I don’t even want to tell you – go dark and then go another shade darker. It was really twisted up shit. School administrators, counsellors, and I followed school district protocol to ensure that Suzie received the support she needed to help her come to terms with her horrific experiences and help her to find a way to move forward. “To save someone’s life is a big deal.” Those are her words, not mine, because I would never claim that I saved her. I had no idea. But I knew, I sensed a couple of times that she was suicidal. At one point I said, “If you kill yourself, I’ll be so angry with you, I won’t come to your funeral. Do you understand this?” “Really?” Suzie said with a quizzical look. “Yes, really!” And she later confided that my comments actually stopped her, at least for that day. But there were some touch-and-go days for her, for sure. And for all the good or bad things I’ve done in my life, when I’m 100 years old sitting back in my rocking chair, I can look back and say, “I know I did at least one good thing.” If I hadn’t taught her music every year of high school and developed a trusting, professional relationship, that wouldn’t have happened. I wouldn’t have been able to help her. That’s why I’m teaching, because of kids like Suzie. I try to make every day about the kids making music with me and with each other. At least once a day when I’m standing in front of the ensembles and looking out at all these faces and all of these different people, some of whom are really easy to work with and some who really piss me off – and everything in between – I look around and realize that for this moment in time, we’re creating something together. And that’s a special thing. And we put aside all of our “whatever,” and I just try to enjoy everyone and that we’re here and committed or partly committed or even half-ass committed to this project, this weird project of doing this thing called “music” together. But on a bigger level, we’re all just trying to connect to each other in some way. We use music to make that connection. That’s just so worth celebrating. We’re in a cooperative, creative venture, and the kids come to understand we’re

31656_Clausen-black.indd 146

20-06-11 13:19



Teachers’ Experiences on the Edge of Life and Death 147

as good as our weakest member and that those people just need a helping hand up if they’re willing to take it and even if they’re not. r e v e r b e r at i o n s a n d r e s o n a n c e

There are few studies on teachers and their experiences with students who are at risk of suicide. Lambert (2015), an English secondary teacher, intertwines the story of her former student’s suicide from the window of the school’s dance studio with the stories of authors and characters in literature who undergo unbearable mental anguish, ultimately succumbing to the same solution. She reminds us that suicide is the third most common cause of death for American adolescents. Moreover, for every teenager who succeeds in committing suicide, at least ten others attempt the deed. In music education research, Edgar (2013) points out that socio-emotional learning (sel) is rarely part of music teacher education or professional development programs, yet, as his own experience conversing with a student who had contemplated suicide revealed, it should be an essential component of music teacher preparation. Wristen (2013) suggests that university and conservatory music departments foster an environment that may promote anxiety and depression because music is a highly competitive field. Also, as an art form, music requires attention to detail that may lead to perfectionism. She suggests that pre-college music educators proactively and openly discuss depression and anxiety with their students and what they might do to help themselves and others when dealing with these issues. The initial purpose of the present inquiry was to address gaps in the literature by revealing – through teachers’ own words – how music educators’ teaching philosophies, beliefs, practices, educational backgrounds, and professional experiences influenced their programs, curriculum, unit planning, and notions of pedagogy. Through the complex journey of becoming open to broader considerations – including our openness to having our work be relevant to teachers as well as making a difference in the lives of teachers and learners – we found autobiographical and autoethnographical reasons to learn more about personal efforts to modify music programs to maximize students’ inclusion in, and engagement with, musical opportunities in schools. We also learned that “good music teaching” is ethical music teaching, learning, and assessment and that “quality” music education extends

31656_Clausen-black.indd 147

20-06-11 13:19

148

Peter Gouzouasis and Anita Prest

far beyond attention to traditional musical learning outcomes. That said, a person cannot develop an ethical sensibility without both an ethos (ἔθος) – a place, a state of mind, a sense of being – and “eethos” (ἦθος) – a sense of character (Gouzouasis and Ryu 2015). In other words, a person’s way of being suggests qualities of their character and dictates their actions (Miller 1974, 309). Thus, the many ways that we make music with our students and the classroom culture that we strive to create with our learners is frequently more important than curriculum learning outcomes. And the emotional, feelingful nature of making music opens all of us who are fully engaged in musicking processes to receptive, sensitive places of self-awareness. Suicide and other difficult topics (e.g., mental and physical abuse) that seem to be unrelated to music teaching and learning are rarely addressed in music education research. As is evidenced in our review of the existing literature, most contemporary forms of writing about these topics are found outside of traditional music education research journals. While they may typically be considered as peripheral to music teaching and learning, they are central to the learning that takes place when humans make music and open their expressive, vulnerable, emotional selves. That said, we are firmly convinced that stories such as these resonate beyond the confines of the pages of journals and that they provide us with verisimilitude in that readers recognize they are real, believable, truthful life stories. Our hope is that the stories herein inspire others to share their experiences in profound and unexpected ways. It is our experience that for every tale we share with music teacher peers, many more are recounted and written. Stories become generalizable, from the writers to the readers and from readers who then become writers of their own stories. That is because when stories resonate, readers frequently become tellers and writers of similar tales, thus expanding and broadening the generalizability of a genre of inquiry. While Lambert (2015), Edgar (2013), and Wristen (2013) share our beliefs regarding the power of storytelling, it is very difficult to develop a “pedagogy of openness” in the confines of the twenty-first-century schoolroom. As Jim adroitly recognized, music teachers are neither trained as counsellors nor equipped to provide life-changing advice to our students. He could have done a master’s in music education, but instead he wisely chose to pursue a degree in counselling to better equip him to understand the “extra-musical” experiences that emanate directly from the openness inspired by the musical experiences of his adolescent students. Whether they are collected in the field or (re)

31656_Clausen-black.indd 148

20-06-11 13:19



Teachers’ Experiences on the Edge of Life and Death 149

collected from personal memory, the “data” are equally meaningful, powerful, and evocative and possess the potential for profound meaning-making. Sharing heartfelt personal stories, even with adult learners, is tricky business. Building trust takes time. Being “open” to, engaging with, and willing to explore a “pedagogy of openness” leaves everyone vulnerable – readers, listeners, and the teacher-storyteller. And the researchers, who interject their personal thoughts and experiences into autoethnographic writing processes, leave themselves vulnerable to questions of who said what, whose ideas were they, what were the “real” interview data, and other misinterpretations of writing inquiries in this research genre. What is most important is that stories resonate – with the storyteller, the interviewer, the research writer, and the many readers who are drawn by the truthfulness of a story. A good story always begets another good story. Jim’s story influenced the recollection of a teacher suicide (Lee and Gouzouasis 2016) and another teen suicide tale (Deo and Gouzouasis 2018). In that way, autoethnographic inquiries are verifiable and substantiated between, within, and across many individuals and audiences. Through autoethnography, researchers move beyond positivist notions of validity, leading to a deeper understanding of the function of verisimilitude in arts-based research (Gouzouasis and Ryu 2015; Eisner 2003; 2004). Not everyone may be interested in taking this approach to writing research for those very reasons. Moreover, this mode of inquiry even raises ethical issues – e.g., when we feel that someone is contemplating suicide, we must consider what we do about it, possible interventions, how intervention may be put in motion, and the “professional standards” we should follow. One may even question whether any teachers should place themselves in potentially dangerous, career-threatening positions when they lack the professional expertise to give advice and delve into the personal matters of adolescent and adult learners. These are all topics that need further study and careful deliberation on deeply personal levels. That said, when we are aware of a learner (or colleague) who is suffering from mental anguish or depression, we are in a position – either through sincere, trusting conversation or by referral to a certified professional – to help a human being and potentially save a person’s life. Anything less, regardless of the risks we may have to take, would be unethical and unjust. Our inquiry generates new possibilities that lead us to broader understandings of the complex socio-cultural dynamics of musicking.

31656_Clausen-black.indd 149

20-06-11 13:19

150

Peter Gouzouasis and Anita Prest

The roles teachers may play in providing a safe place for students, the professional standards that teachers must uphold with learners, and the impact that music has on our lives (in)form an unwritten curriculum of care and belonging. Through a reflective-reflexive process, we develop a comprehension of how engagement with music making has a profound impact on learners – beyond traditional teaching and learning practices and beyond ways that socio-emotional learning is typically studied in the literature. We are also reminded that engaging in contemporary forms of qualitative research is not a linear process. Rather than sticking with a prescribed set of questions and condensing a dozen interviews to formulate artificial text boxes of written data, we acted on our instincts and went with the flow of a conversation that led us to learn more than we ever could about curriculum through the eyes, ears, and heart of a mindful teacher. Being open and trusting our intuitions, we also realized that while “we know more than we can tell” (Polyani 1967, 4), we could only tell this story as a performative, autoethnographic tale. While arts-based educational research has been in play for twenty years (Barone and Eisner 1997), and a/r/­tography – a hybrid form of action research – was developed soon thereafter (de Cosson 2003; Irwin and de Cosson 2004), most researchers are still mired in positivist and post-positivist forms of studying music, music making, music learning, and music teaching. Our chapter adds to a steadily growing oeuvre that encourages researchers to embrace action-based forms of knowing to develop new understandings of the roles of music teachers in the lives of adolescents.

references

Abramo, Melissa. 2009. “The Construction of Instrumental Music Teacher Identity.” PhD diss., Teachers College, Columbia University, New York. Retrieved from ProQuest Dissertations and Theses, publication number 3345563. Abril, Carlos. 2009. “Responding to Culture in the Instrumental Music Programme: A Teacher’s Journey.” Music Education Research 11(1), 77–91. Barone, Thomas, and Elliot W. Eisner. 1997. “Arts Based Educational Research.” In Complimentary Methods for Research in Education, edited by Richard M. Jaeger, 73–103. Washington, dc : American Educational Research Association.

31656_Clausen-black.indd 150

20-06-11 13:19



Teachers’ Experiences on the Edge of Life and Death 151

Conkling, Susan. 2004. “Music Teacher Practice and Identity in Professional Development Partnerships.” Action, Criticism, and Theory for Music Education 3(3), 1–15. http://act.maydaygroup.org/articles/Conkling3_3. pdf. Dawe, Nancy. 2007. “Identity and Borderland Discourse: Bridging the Personal and the Professional in Music Teacher Identity Research.” The Canadian Music Educator 49(2), 39–42. de Cosson, Alex F. 2003. “(Re)searching Sculpted A/r/tography: (Re)learning Subverted Knowing through Aporetic Praxis.” PhD diss., University of British Columbia. https://open.library.ubc.ca/cIRcle/collections/­ ubctheses/831/items/1.0091201. Deo, Candice, and Peter Gouzouasis. 2019. “To Build a Home.” Qualitative Research in Psychology 17(2), 178–81. Dolloff, Lori-Anne. 2007. “‘All the Things We Are’: Balancing our Multiple Identities in Music Teaching.” Action, Criticism, and Theory for Music Education 6(2), 1–21. http://act.maydaygroup.org/articles/Dolloff6_2. pdf. Doyle, Jennifer. 2012. “Cultural Relevance in Urban Music Education: A Synthesis of the Literature.” Update: Applications of Research in Music Education 32(2), 44–51. Edgar, Scott. 2013. “Introducing Social Emotional Learning to Music Education Professional Development.” Update: Applications of Research in Music Education 31(2), 28–36. Eisner, Elliot W. 2003. “On the Differences between Scientific and Artistic Approaches to Qualitative Research.” Visual Arts Research 29(57), 5–11. – 2004. “What Can Education Learn from the Arts about the Practice of Education.” International Journal of Education and the Arts 5(4): 1–15. Ellis, Carolyn. 2004. The Ethnographic I: A Methodological Novel about Autoethnography. Walnut Creek, ca: AltaMira Press. Etherington, Kim. 2004. Becoming a Reflexive Researcher: Using Our Selves in Research. London, UK: Jessica Kingsley. Gouzouasis, Peter, and Jee Yeon Ryu. 2015. “A Pedagogical Tale from the Piano Studio: Autoethnography in Early Childhood Music Education Research.” Music Education Research 17(4), 397–420. Gray, Lori. 2011. “The Impact of Changing Teaching Jobs on Music Teacher Identity, Role, and Perceptions of Role Support.” PhD diss., Arizona State University, Tempe. Retrieved from ProQuest Dissertations and Theses, publication number 3450296.

31656_Clausen-black.indd 151

20-06-11 13:19

152

Peter Gouzouasis and Anita Prest

Irwin, Rita L., and Alex de Cosson, eds. 2004. A/r/tography: Rendering Self through Arts-Based Living Inquiry. Vancouver, b c : Pacific Educational Press. Lambert, Ellen. 2013. “Death Will Abide: A Meditation on Adolescent Suicide.” Raritan: A Quarterly Review 33(1), 122–47. Lee, Karen V. 2004. “Riffs of Change: Musicians Becoming Music Educators.” PhD diss., University of British Columbia, Vancouver. https://open.library.ubc.ca/cIRcle/collections/ubctheses/831/ items/1.0055047. – 2005a. “Joseph Santini: Divided I Stand.” Qualitative Inquiry 11(4), 650–60. – 2005b. “Neuroticism: End of a Doctoral Dissertation.” Qualitative Inquiry 11(6), 933–8. – 2006a. “Fallen Diva.” Reflective Practice 7(3), 383–91. – 2006b. “The Eleventh Hour.” Visions in Research in Music Education 8. Available at http://www.rider.edu/~vrme. – 2006c. “A Fugue about Grief.” Qualitative Inquiry 12(6), 1154–9. – 2007. “George: Music and Apple Pie.” Journal of Creative Work (Scientific Journals International) [online journal] v(2), Art. 3. http:// www.scientificjournals.org/journals2007/j_of_creative2.htm. – 2008. “White Whispers.” Qualitative Inquiry 14(6), 896–900. – 2009. “I Reach for Rum.” Qualitative Inquiry 15(3), 499–502. Lee, Karen V., and Peter Gouzouasis. 2016. “Suicide Is Painless: An Autoethnography of Tragedy.” LEARN ing Landscapes 9(2), 339–50. Legette, Roy M. 2003. “Multicultural Music Education: Attitudes, Values, and Practices of Public School Music Teachers.” Journal of Music Teacher Education 13(1), 51–9. MacDonald, Raymond R., David Hargreaves, and Dorothy Miell, eds. 2002. Musical Identities. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press. Miller, Arthur B. 1974. “Aristotle on Habit (ἦθος) and Character (ἔθος): Implications for the Rhetoric.” Speech Monographs 41, 309–16. Nethsinghe, Rohan. 2012. “The Influence of Informal Music Education in Teacher Formation: An Autoethnography.” The Qualitative Report 17(98), 1–16. http://www.nova.edu/ssss/QR/QR17/nethsinghe.pdf. Odena, Oscar, and Graham, F. Welch. 2007. “The Influence of Teachers’ Backgrounds on Their Perceptions of Musical Creativity: A Qualitative Study with Secondary School Music Teachers.” Research Studies in Music Education 28(1), 71–81. Olesen, Bradley C. 2010. “The Impact of Musical Background, Choral Conducting Training and Music Teaching Style on the Choral Warm-Up

31656_Clausen-black.indd 152

20-06-11 13:19



Teachers’ Experiences on the Edge of Life and Death 153

Philosophy and Practices of Successful High School Choral Directors.” PhD diss., University of Miami. http://scholarlyrepository.miami.edu/ oa_dissertations/425. Osborne, Margery D. 1998. “Teacher as Knower and Learner: Reflections on Situated Knowledge in Science Teaching.” Journal of Research in Science Teaching 35(4), 427–39. Polyani, Michael. 1967. The Tacit Dimension. New York, ny: Anchor Books. Roberts, Brian A. 2000. “The Sociologist’s Snare: Identity Construction and Socialization in Music.” International Journal of Music Education 35(1), 54–8. Romanowski, Michael. 1997. “Teachers’ Lives and Beliefs: Influences That Shape the U.S. History Curriculum.” Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Chicago, i l , 24–8 April. Schindler, Margaret. 2009. “Where Was I When I Needed Me? The Role of Storytelling in Vocal Pedagogy.” In Music Autoethnographies: Making Authoethnography Sing/Making Music Personal, edited by Brydie-Leigh Bartleet and Carolyn Ellis, 181–93. Bowen Hills, Australia: Australian Academic Press. Skerrett, Allison. 2008. “‘Going the Race Way’: Biographical Influences on Multicultural and Antiracist English Curriculum Practices.” Teaching and Teacher Education 24, 1813–26. Small, Christopher. 1998. Musicking: The Meanings of Performing and Listening. Hanover, n h: Wesleyan/University Press of New England. Smith, Robert W. 2000. “The Influence of Teacher Background on the Inclusion of Multicultural Education: A Case Study of Two Contrasts.” The Urban Review 32(2), 155–76. Woodford, Paul, G. 2002. “The Social Construction of Music Teacher Identity in Undergraduate Music Education Majors.” In The New Handbook of Research on Music Teaching and Learning: A Project of the Music Educators National Conference, edited by Richard Colwell and Carol Richardson, 675–94. New York, ny: Oxford University Press. Wristen, Brenda G. 2013. “Depression and Anxiety in University Music Students.” Update: Applications of Research in Music Education 31(2), 20–7.

31656_Clausen-black.indd 153

20-06-11 13:19

31656_Clausen-black.indd 154

20-06-11 13:19

part c

Small and Large Group Reporting / Collaborations Collaborative action research is critical inquiry in a collaborative environment. The team approach to action research provides colleagues with an opportunity to pursue a common goal in a focused, deliberate approach. Collaborative action research is done with people in a social context and brings action research back to its original goals: “to bring about change in social situations as the result of group problem-solving and collaboration” (Burns 1999, 12). In collaborative action research, participants work in teams with a shared vision to find solutions to foster universal school success. Teachers’ work is never complete. When action research is ­collaborative, there are more opportunities to develop a learning community through professional development. Research that is ­collaborative is more likely to be used to change school or district policy. For example, schools or districts may use the research to inform decisions for major purchases. As members of a collaborative action research team, colleagues struggle together to be active learners to improve student achievement by making changes in process, product, or programs. Educators have a moral imperative to ensure equity in students’ learning. In collaborative action research, there is a shared vision of increasing student excellence and equity. Collaboration can be multiple school districts, whole district or school, multiple grades (vertical collaboration), or same grades. Sagor and Williams (2017) propose three categories of collaborative action research. The first is a unified team approach in which all

31656_Clausen-black.indd 155

20-06-11 13:19

156

Part C

members share the same concept or theory to solve a problem or answer a question. The group (or administration) selects a common question or set of questions to investigate. Each person on the ­unified team collects and analyzes the same data and produces one report. In the second approach, colleagues research the same question, and because of different perspectives they use different methods or strategies to solve the problem. The group follows the same criteria and data sources to measure success. Although colleagues are working toward the same goal, they are encouraged and empowered to be creative. The third category for collaborative research could be described as a research support group because each person is involved in a personal passion project (Sagor and Williams 2017). The caution of the group involved in different ­projects is the potential for isolation and loneliness in the research process, further embedding Barth’s (1980) description of a typical elementary school as a string of one-room schoolhouses connected by a corridor. What is required for a support group approach is the opportunity to share results, provide feedback, and value ­colleagues’ approaches to solving a problem or concern for improvement. There are benefits to collaborative action research when participants understand the proposed change and the commitment to data sharing. They work together as colleagues and designers of change to propose a new course of action that will help the school community improve. As researchers, colleagues analyze the changes, with the goal of developing a deeper understanding of the factors of change. As individuals, teachers have a subjective view. In a collaborative approach, they develop understandings of the data collected from multiple perspectives, which can result in positive personal and professional change, and meaningful learning unfolds. Planning, implementation, and evaluation of a process, product, or program are done collaboratively. Working as a team to find solutions leads to sharing, which can lead to informal learning. Participants can keep current with educational issues if they are committed to developing background information for a project. The processes and dynamics of a group influence the success of a collaborative endeavour. The level of commitment may not be the same for all team members, which can be challenging and frustrating for the team members who are committed to the project. Time constraint is a factor teachers highlight for any proposed project.

31656_Clausen-black.indd 156

20-06-11 13:19



Small and Large Group Reporting /Collaborations 157

Nevertheless, in all situations teachers are able to reflect on their own pedagogical practices. The chapters in Part C represent a range of collaborative approaches to action research. The scope of the collaborative action research projects varies with each chapter, ranging from fourteen teacher candidates, to two teachers from one school district, to ­hundreds of teachers across multiple school districts in one province. Similar across the chapters is the collaborative relationship between teachers and researchers working together to conduct research on topics of shared interest. The projects were developed to enhance content knowledge and/or improve pedagogical practices. The topics of interest in the chapters ranged from literacy to mathematics, science, and educational leadership. A caution for researchers and principals leading a project is to not to dominate or exert influence over the teachers participating in the inquiry. Discussion in the chapters highlights the need to ensure that the inquiry had established collaborative decision-making that was equitable and democratic. Negotiation and teacher choice was ­critical to the success of the projects. A theme, similar to individual action research, was the challenge of time. The amount of time required to commit to a collaborative inquiry generated frustration. Teachers and researchers were, nevertheless, committed to their ­collaborative action research, and all reported the benefit of their inquiries was the promotion of a culture of shared responsibility and professional growth within their school communities.

references

Barth, Roland. 1980. Run School Run. Cambridge, ma : Harvard University Press. Burns, Anne. 1999. Collaborative Action Research for English Language Teachers. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.  Sagor, Richard, and Charlene Williams. 2017. The Action Research Guidebook: A Process for Pursuing Equity and Excellence in Education. Thousand Oaks, ca: Corwin.

31656_Clausen-black.indd 157

20-06-11 13:19

9 Emotional Labour in Collaborative Action Research The Power of Feeling in Critical Language Education Sunny Man Chu Lau

Teaching takes enormous emotional work (Hargreaves 1988), and so does educational action research as researchers navigate the mixture of emotions that go into the living classroom teaching and praxis. Recent research has brought into relief the pertinence of emotions in education (Boler 1999; Zembylas 2005), yet little work has been done to determine the importance of emotions in research. Furthermore, while (participatory) action research ([p]ar) upholds the sanctity of a caring and respectful relationship with research partners/participants (Fals Border 2006; Park 2006), few (p)arrelated studies focus on the affective side of partnerships and the role emotions play in research processes. This chapter elaborates on a reflexive analysis of the emotional journey of a university-school research partnership in promoting critical biliteracy learning. I will first describe the feminist and poststructuralist theories that informed this critical-affective approach to research praxis, followed by a description of the self-study, particularly on how critical moments of deeply felt emotions shaped the research and partnership. The chapter will conclude by arguing for the pressing importance of re-­centring affectivity and relationality, traditionally core in (p)ar, to resist the growing neoliberal positivist culture in education/research in which the human element is increasingly sidelined.

31656_Clausen-black.indd 158

20-06-11 13:19



Emotional Labour in Collaborative Action Research 159

feminist and poststructuralist perspectives of emotions in teaching and action research

Classroom realities demand of teachers tremendous emotional work (Hargreaves 1988) to achieve empathy for their students. Emotional understanding (Denzin 1984) is an intersubjective process by which one enters into the felt experience of the other and participates vicariously in his/her emotionality. Recent research views emotions, rather than merely disposition and individual qualities, as inextricably socially situated and context-specific (Nias 1996; Troman 2000). Studies have foregrounded the links between teacher burnout and the growing audit culture embedded in neoliberal educational reforms. Hargreaves (1988) borrows Hochschild’s Marxist concept of emotional labour (1993, 7) to examine how teachers and school leaders have to induce, suppress, or neutralize certain emotions to meet market-oriented organizational demands. Feminist and poststructuralist understanding of emotions as a discursive construct helps to further illuminate the socio-political nature of emotions (Ahmed 2004). Emotions are bodily feelings produced through relationships and are experienced and expressed in their related corporeal rituals, gestures, expressions, habits, and language use prescribed and regulated by socio-cultural norms and expectations that govern (and reproduce) gender, class, and race relations (Lutz 2002; Misson and Morgan 2006; Skeggs 2005). The emergence of “emotional intelligence” or “emotional literacy” in contemporary curricular reforms is thus seen as a form of governmentality (Boler 1999) that seduces individual teachers (and students alike) to police their emotions in order to perform (Butler 1990) and achieve certain teacher (and student) identity and “subject-ivity” delineated by the foucauldian regulatory ideals. The “affective turn” (Clough 2007) in critical and cultural theories invites us to view emotions as a site of discursive struggle, which, in turn, helps to re-envision alternative forms of resistance (Boler 1999; Zembylas 2005). Since social beliefs are not solely rational choices but are fundamentally grounded in relationships and emotional investments (Misson 1996), disruption of hegemonic norms thus requires one to re-evaluate and problematize emotional attachments to these norms or practices by which certain identities are constructed and inequities sustained (Ahmed 2004; Boler and Zembylas 2003).

31656_Clausen-black.indd 159

20-06-11 13:19

160

Sunny Man Chu Lau

Attending to the emotionality of the actors in education is not just to understand how they feel but why they feel a certain way in a particular socio-political context as a point of departure for critical imagination of alternative ways of being and acting (Amsler 2011; Probyn 2004). As Spivak (2004, 526) posits, transformative education is “an un-coercive rearrangement of desires.” Holmes (2010, 140) argues for the emotionalization of reflexivity in critical education, viewing reflexivity as a fundamentally “emotional, embodied and cognitive process” as individuals try to seek an understanding of and change in their feelings about their lives in relation to others and their environments. Recent critical pedagogy research has seen steady growth relating to where teacher-researchers employ their emotional reflexivity in evaluating and examining their practices and understanding their students’ needs. Examples can be found in Benesch (2012), Lewis and Tierney (2011), and Lau (2015), in which students’ shifting desires and emotional responses in class have been shown to provide crucial guides for the teacher/researchers’ momentary pedagogical decisions to enhance students’ lived critical engagement. Research adopting the affective lens in exploring critical citizenship, race, and multicultural education (e.g., Zembylas 2013; 2014) is also shown to be effective in enabling teachers and students to recognize their affective attachments and entanglements with certain social attitudes and practices, offering openings, albeit small, for new possibilities of being, thinking, acting, and feeling. Emotionality as a heuristic in critical education should be similarly applied to praxis-oriented research. (p)a r incorporates a political agenda to subvert positivist scientism in research culture for the critical recovery of people’s knowledge through a participatory capacitybuilding process for community needs (Reason and Bradbury 2006). At its core is a critical, humanistic belief in the autonomy and empowerment of individuals for resources, knowledge, and power for socially just causes (Freire 1970). (p)a r is a philosophy of life (Fals Border 2006) and a way of being (Stanley 1990) that aspires to a holistic blending of the head and heart and of logic and sentiment, with a moral commitment to praxis with community stakeholders. Feministgrounded action research views social empowerment as profoundly relational in that human growth and change take place in the context of human relationships (Maguire 2006; Miller 1986). It is with/in the ethic of genuine care and respect that relations of dominance are turned inside out (Lather 1991). Relational knowledge (Park 2006)

31656_Clausen-black.indd 160

20-06-11 13:19



Emotional Labour in Collaborative Action Research 161

as one fundamental knowledge in (p )ar theory and practice allows human beings to know one another both cognitively and affectively: “We establish relationships with our bodies and feelings, in pleasure and pain, in laughter and tears, and with shared experiences and stories” (87). Relational knowledge comes from connecting and from thoughtful attention to the others’ desires and needs, creating change-enhancing context without being impositional (Lather 1991). Researchers are often advised to not let emotions enter or obscure the research process (Cain 2012). Gallagher (2016), however, views affect as a “vital asset” in researchers’ praxis-oriented efforts in decolonizing research relations as well as mind-body hierarchy in knowledge production. She proposes that researchers adopt a critical-affective stance to research praxis in order to understand how circulations of emotions enable or disable research relations and knowledge-making, a critical-affective gaze on both participants/partners’ and researchers’ own evolving feelings and desires illustrating the complex ways that social and personal importance is attached to certain deeply held values and convictions about education and research. Some (p )a r researchers have examined how their own embodied power hierarchy influences affective connections, which in turn forms or trans-forms certain research partnerships conducive or disruptive to democratic and transformative potential (Moje 2000; Lau and Stille 2014; Toohey and Waterstone 2004). This chapter aims to add to this body of work and further theorize the role of emotionality in (p )ar. self-study of the emotional terrain i n r e s e a r c h pa rt n e r s h i p s

Using self-study (Clarke and Erickson 2004) as the methodology, I cast a critical look at myself and my research practice in a universityschool partnership on translanguaging study for critical biliteracies. The two collaborating teachers in this four-year research partnership were Pascale and Joan (pseudonyms), respectively teaching f s l and ela in a multi-age classroom (Grades 4–6) in an English school in eastern Quebec. Sharing the same value of critical language learning, we started our research collaboration by exploring how dual language critical literacy activities afforded students’ fluid participation, meaningful transfer of knowledge, and depth of critical inquiry. Drawing on (p )a r ’s fundamental values, I established bi-monthly meetings with the teachers to review ongoing data for collaborative and

31656_Clausen-black.indd 161

20-06-11 13:19

162

Sunny Man Chu Lau

communal reflections (cf. Rearick and Feldman 1999) on pedagogy, practices, and interactions that could best promote students’ biliteracies development and critical understanding of social issues. The ethnographic data we collected included lesson recordings, teacher and student interviews, research meetings, research journals and field notes from participant observations, and informal conversations and email communications with the teachers. To cast a critical look at the emotional journey of this research partnership, I adopted a criticalaffective stance, as Gallagher (2016) suggests, to examine the texts generated by the data I read, heard, experienced, and remembered (Hamilton, Smith, and Worthington 2008) during the research process to investigate critical moments of deeply felt emotions that shaped the research relationships and trajectories. The focus of this chapter is on those emotions experienced at the initial stage of the partnership. a rocky beginning

As a young faculty member newly relocated to Quebec, I found that my research partnership with Pascale and Joan gave me the opportunity to understand the curricula and the teaching and learning environment in Quebec, where language policies continue to stir up much heated emotion and debate. Adopting a translanguaging approach (García and Li 2014) to English and French learning, a purposeful and strategic use of languages and modalities in the same lesson for meaning-making was innovative – and slightly controversial, given the entrenched socio-political divide between the two language communities in Quebec. Looking back, while my research partners and I would agree that our collaboration was fruitful and rewarding, I found the first year or so challenging and noted in my research journal how overwhelmed I was with joy, excitement, anxiety, guilt, and loss. Our joint venture took off with tremendous support from the board and school as well as a dedicated commitment from Joan and Pascale, who were enthusiastic, compassionate, and forward-looking. Aspiring to the (p)ar democratic ideals of parity of esteem and expertise (Grundy 1998), I shared my vision of an equal partnership in our first meeting to encourage the two teachers’ active participation in all aspects of our research. However, soon the teachers were not communicating as consistently as would have been preferable. In our initial meeting, we decided on a year-long theme with specific learning objectives and tentative

31656_Clausen-black.indd 162

20-06-11 13:19



Emotional Labour in Collaborative Action Research 163

curricular ideas based on the mandatory program to ensure a gradual introduction to critical literacy while striving to maintain a porous curriculum responsive to children’s emerging needs. Ideally, I wanted to visit the classroom at least once a week, but due to school events or provisional scheduling, this was not always feasible. To avoid imposition and ensure flexibility, we did not fix a day for my routine participant observation and lesson recording; rather, the teachers agreed to notify me as to when they would focus on critical literacy using the translanguaging approach. This method, however, proved to be flawed; on several occasions in the early months of our partnership, I found out that certain pertinent lessons had been taught only after they had been delivered, resulting in my missing some valuable data collection opportunities. Often, the lessons arose from a spontaneous response to certain things students did or said in the classroom or on the playground, which the teachers rightfully turned into teachable moments linking back to the chosen topic. On one hand, I felt excited by the teachers’ choices because they respected the children’s lived experience and turned their interest and needs into significant subjects of inquiry; on the other hand, I was frustrated to be left out of the process and for there to be a gap in our understanding of what collaborative research looked like. We had not explicitly discussed the boundaries between teaching and research and the teachers’ prioritization of instruction over research, leaving it unclear as to how I could engage them fully in research while they were teaching. Furthermore, how we were to share the research ownership and responsibilities, as raised in Zeni (1998), remained undefined. In our later discussions, it became clear that the teachers’ hectic schedules made it hard for them to keep a two-way communication channel with me. Their uncertainty of what (p )a r meant and what qualified as research-worthy data also complicated the issue. Subscribing to a naturalistic approach to research, I remained openminded in my observations; however, this openness also reduced specific direction and structure for the collaborating teachers. What compounded these feelings of confusion and frustration was my discomfort in engaging the two teachers with more critical discussions on language teaching. Both teachers firmly believed in a sociocultural approach to language (Moje and Lewis 2007), viewing it as a fundamentally social practice, something that should be taught not as decontextualized isolated grammar elements or vocabulary but in tandem with meaningful social issues. Pascale initially leaned more

31656_Clausen-black.indd 163

20-06-11 13:19

164

Sunny Man Chu Lau

toward a broad comprehension-based f s l approach, neglecting a systematic, explicit instruction of language features, which she later admitted would have benefitted some of her struggling fsl students. In the early stages of our collaboration before we had established a relationship, I felt uncertain as to how to engage the teachers in more critical discussion about language teaching. Below is an example from my research journal after I observed a lesson by Pascale four months into our partnership: “Every time I raised a question, I was so worried that it was perceived as a kind of judgment and/or evaluation. I sensed the tension when I did that … I really didn’t want to frustrate her and have her feel that I was being so critical here. Or that it would jeopardize our research partnership” (research journal, 24 January 2014). Reflecting critically on the incident, I realized that part of the pressure came from my idealized equal relationships in (p)ar, making me hypersensitive to any judgment I might inadvertently pass onto my partners that would be perceived as condescending and therefore damage our relationship. It also revealed my lack of experience in an appreciative inquiry approach (Ludema, Cooperrider, and Barrett 2006) to promote a more participative engagement in finding common ground and sharing possibilities. Rationally, I knew I had the necessary pedagogical knowledge and research experience in second language education and critical literacy to succeed at the research project. Emotionally, however, as an immigrant newly relocated to the area with most of my education (except doctorate) and teaching experience received elsewhere and having neither English nor French as my native tongue despite years of education in both, I was awash with insecurity and self-doubt. In university, I had engaged my pre-service students in critical discussions of the prevalent monolingual bias in bilingualism, challenging its imposed standards of equal and complete levels of proficiency in both languages for one to be qualified as bilingual. My emotional subscription to the native-speaker fallacy (Canagarajah 1999) – that native speakers of English (or French) make the best teachers (and researchers) because of their “perfect” innate knowledge of the language and culture – however, made me hesitant to voice my opinions in research meetings and second-guess my abilities in research processes. A colleague who had formerly worked closely with Joan and Pascale intimated that they would be open to suggestions for improved practice and encouraged me to address those issues in our research meeting. I examined Joan and Pascale’s reactions after my class observations and found their posing of questions such as “I hope this was what

31656_Clausen-black.indd 164

20-06-11 13:19



Emotional Labour in Collaborative Action Research 165

you’re looking for” or “I don’t know what you think of the lesson” showed that they were in fact looking to my institutional and academic authority for reassurance of their own teaching practice. This recognition of our mutual insecurities enabled me to feel more comfortable sharing my thoughts while remaining open to member checks and alternative interpretations from the teachers. Also, recognizing time constraints prevented sufficient face-to-face discussions, I started using email to convey my thoughts and feelings about my observations of each lesson, thus instigating more dialogic communication. Further, I shared my vulnerabilities and limited knowledge in certain areas to humble myself and invite intimacy between us. One situation in particular ended up serving as an excellent “teachable moment” for us all. We had arranged to have two university volunteers come to our class to talk about their experience teaching Burmese refugees in Thailand in order to promote critical understanding of children’s rights, our main theme for that year. While waiting in the hallway, I joked with one of the presenters that she, having worked in Southeast Asia for more than a year, was now too tanned to look “Canadian.” Later in the presentation, the children were excited about “exotic” cultural practices in Thailand such as cockfights and a powder commonly used to whiten skin. The presenters and the children’s seemingly innocent comments about people’s preference for fair skin suddenly made me realize I had inadvertently reinforced this bias when I had joked with the presenter. The ideology of whiteness in the predominant assumption of what a “Canadian” is marginalizes visible minorities, and despite being a visible minority myself and one who is distinctly aware, on a daily basis, that I am “other” in a French-Canadian world, I nonetheless fell victim to this hegemonic value. I was relieved when the teachers grasped the opportunity to discuss critically with the class the social value attached to skin colour. After the class, I wrote them an email applauding their spontaneity in responding to the class conversations and also decided to speak candidly about the joke, my recognition of my conflicting cultural assumptions, and the shame I felt for easily perpetuating a stereotype. To my relief, the teachers responded promptly with great appreciation for my thoughts and agreed to the need to push the children to look beyond superficial cultural practices. Ultimately, our email communications (on top of the research meetings) provided us with a fruitful channel for our collaborative, communal reflections. The teachers did not have the time to respond to each of my emails; however, they

31656_Clausen-black.indd 165

20-06-11 13:19

166

Sunny Man Chu Lau

assured me when we met that they read, reflected on, and discussed the ideas I shared. My reflexive recognition of my layered emotions toward certain social practices not only helped to create an emotional bond but also an open channel for more honest discussion. Further, my willingness to be open helped to set the tone for our critical literacy teaching and the trajectory of our research. Recognizing our own frailties as human beings, we re-centred our critical literacy focus, not necessarily on what the students should think or feel about certain issues but rather on what might have contributed to those emotions as a starting point for further critical engagement. concluding thoughts

Using Gallagher’s (2016) critical-affective stance to examine my feelings of anxiety at the initial stage of our research collaboration, I came to a better understanding of the sociality of emotions and insecurities as compounded by my inexperience as a new researcher and faculty member as well as my internalized deficit ideological beliefs of myself as a non-“Canadian” and a non-native English and French speaker. My attention to the teachers’ similar but different perspectives on knowledge and institutional hierarchy helped to ease my feelings of inferiority and prompted my honest revelation and finding alternative means for more dialogic communication. My sharing of vulnerable emotions via email also helped us to see the need to re-evaluate and problematize our affective attachments to social beliefs, which influenced the priorities of our critical teaching and research in our collaboration. Emotions, Gallagher (2016, 92) argues, whether (un)expected or (un)comfortable, provide “windows onto the larger social, cultural and political contexts that already shape our inquiries.” Rather than viewing emotions as a hindrance, (p)ar researchers should let their own and their partners’ emotions be a guide to enhance their collaboration and serve as another valuable resource for new ways of knowing, relating, and working. In the present global hegemonic culture of neoliberal positivism and scientism, whereby detached reasoning, quantifiable outcomes, and impersonal standardized testing are preferred as the legitimate means of knowledge production, (p)ar’s core value of care and relationships needs to resume its centre stage to refocus our research gaze on the corporeal and relational aspects of partnerships for knowledge de-/re-construction. The recent “affective turn” (Clough 2007) in critical and cultural theories will continue to

31656_Clausen-black.indd 166

20-06-11 13:19



Emotional Labour in Collaborative Action Research 167

help reinvigorate the theorization of (p)ar, particularly the role the politics of emotions plays in epistemology, values, and beliefs.

references

Ahmed, Sara. 2004. The Cultural Politics of Emotion. New York, ny: Routledge. Amsler, Sarah. 2011. “From ‘Therapeutic’ to Political Education: The Centrality of Affective Sensibility in Critical Pedagogy.” Critical Studies in Education 52(1), 47–63. doi:10.1080/17508487.2011.536512. Benesch, Sarah. 2012. Considering Emotions in Critical English Language Teaching. New York, n y: Routledge. Boler, Megan. 1999. Feeling Power: Emotions and Education. New York, ny: Routledge. Boler, Megan, and Michalinos Zembylas. 2003. “Discomforting Truths: The Emotional Terrain of Understanding Difference.” In Pedagogies of Difference: Rethinking Education for Social Change, edited by Peter Trifonas, 107–30. New York n y: Routledge. Butler, Judith. 1990. Gender Trouble: Feminism and the Subversion of Identity. New York, n y: Routledge. Cain, Cindy L. 2012. “Emotions and the Research Interview: What Hospice Workers Can Teach Us.” Health Sociology Review 21(4), 396–405. Canagarajah, A. Suresh. 1999. “Interrogating the ‘Native Speaker Fallacy’: Non-Linguistic Roots, Non-Pedagogical Results.” In Non-Native Educators in English Language Teaching, edited by George Braine, 77–92. Mahwah, n j: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Clarke, Anthony, and Gallen Erickson. 2004. “Self-Study: The Fifth Commonplace.” Australian Journal of Education 48(2), 199–211. Clough, Patricia T., ed. 2007. The Affective Turn: Theorizing the Social. Durham, n c: Duke University Press. Denzin, Norman K. 1984. On Understanding Emotion. San Francisco, c a : Jossey-Bass. Fals Border, Orlando. 2006. “Participatory (Action) Research in Social Theory: Origins and Challenges.” In The Handbook of Action Research, edited by Peter Reason and Hilary Bradbury, 27–37. Los Angeles, c a : Sage. Freire, Paulo. 1970. Pedagogy of the Oppressed. New York, ny: Herder and Herder.

31656_Clausen-black.indd 167

20-06-11 13:19

168

Sunny Man Chu Lau

Gallagher, Kathleen. 2016. “Navigating the Emotional Terrain of Research: Affect and Reason by Way of Imagination.” In Methodological Advances in Research on Emotion and Education, edited by Michalinos Zembylas and Paul A. Schultz, 83–94. Switzerland: Springer International Publishing. García, Ofelia, and Weii Li. 2014. Translanguaging: Language, Bilingualism and Education. Hampshire, UK: Palgrave Macmillan. Grundy, Shirley. 1998. “Research Partnerships: Principles and Possibilities.” In Action Research in Practice: Partnerships for Social Justice in Education, edited by Bill Atweh, Stephen Kemmis, and Patricia Weeks, 37–46. London, UK: Routledge. Hamilton, Mary Lynn, Laura Smith, and Kristen Worthington. 2008. “Fitting the Methodology with the Research: An Exploration of Narrative, Self-Study and Auto-Ethnography.” Studying Teacher Education 4(1), 17–28. Hargreaves, Andy. 1988. “The Emotional Politics of Teaching and Teacher Development: With Implications for Educational Leadership.” International Journal of Leadership in Education (1), 315–36. Hochschild, Arlie R. 1993. The Managed Heart: The Commercialization of Human Feeling. Berkeley, ca: University of California Press. Holmes, Mary. 2010. “The Emotionalization of Reflexivity.” Sociology 44 (1), 139–54. Lather, Patti. 1991. Getting Smart: Feminist Research and Pedagogy with/ in the Postmodern. New York, n y: Routledge. Lau, Sunny M.C. 2015. “Relationality and Emotionality: Toward a Reflexive Ethic in Critical Teaching.” Journal of Critical Literacy: Theories and Practices 9(2), 85–102. Lau, Sunny M.C., and Saskia Stille. 2014. “Participatory Research with Teachers: Toward a Pragmatic and Dynamic View of Equity and Parity in Research Relationships.” European Journal of Teacher Education 37(2), 156–70. doi:10.1080/02619768.2014.882313. Lewis, Cynthia, and Jessica D. Tierney. 2011. “Mobilizing Emotion in an Urban English Classroom.” Changing English: Studies in Culture and Education 18(3), 319–29. Ludema, James D., David L. Cooperrider, and Frank J. Barrett. 2006. “Appreciative Inquiry: The Power of the Unconditional Positive Question.” In The Handbook of Action Research, edited by Peter Reason and Hilary Bradbury, 155–65. London, UK: Sage. Lutz, Catherine. 2002. “Feminist Emotions.” In Power and Self, edited by Jeanette Mageo, 194–515. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

31656_Clausen-black.indd 168

20-06-11 13:19



Emotional Labour in Collaborative Action Research 169

Maguire, Patricia. 2006. “Uneven Ground: Feminisms and Action Research.” In The Handbook of Action Research, edited by Peter Reason and Hilary Bradbury, 60–70. Los Angeles, c a : Sage. Miller, Jean. 1986. Toward a New Psychology of Women. Boston, ma : Beacon Press. Misson, Ray. 1996. “What’s in It for Me? Teaching against Homophobic Discourse.” In Schooling and Sexualities: Teaching for a Positive Sexuality, edited by Peter Reason and Hilary Bradbury, 117–29. Geelong, Australia: Deakin Centre for Education and Change. Misson, Ray, and Wendy Morgan. 2006. Critical Literacy and the Aesthetic: Transforming the English Classroom. Urbana, il: National Council of Teachers of English. Moje, Elizabeth B. 2000. “Changing Our Minds, Changing Our Bodies: Power as Embodied in Research Relations.” Qualitative Studies In Education 13(1), 25–42. Moje, Elizabeth B., and Catherine Lewis. 2007. “Examining Opportunities to Learn Literacy: The Role of Critical Sociocultural Literacy Research.” In Reframing Sociocultural Research on Literacy, edited by Catherine Lewis, Patricia Enciso, and Elizabeth B. Moje, 15–48. New York, ny: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Nias, Jennifer. 1996. “Thinking about Feeling: The Emotions in Teaching.” Cambridge Journal of Education 26(3), 293. Park, Peter. 2006. “Knowledge and Participatory Research.” In The Handbook of Action Research, edited by Peter Reason and Hilary Bradbury, 83–93. Los Angeles, ca: Sage. Probyn, Elspeth. 2004. “Teaching Bodies: Affects in the Classroom.” Body and Society 10, 21–43. Rearick, Mary L., and Allan Feldman. 1999. “Orientations, Purposes, and Reflection: A Framework for Understanding Action Research.” Teaching and Teacher Education 15, 333–49. Reason, Peter, and Hilary Bradbury. 2006. “Introduction: Inquiry and Participation in Search of a World Worthy of Human Aspiration.” In Handbook of Action Research: Participative Inquiry and Practice, edited by Peter Reason and Hilary Bradbury. Los Angeles, c a : Sage. Skeggs, Bev. 2005. “The Making of Class and Gender through Visualizing Moral Subject Formation.” Sociology 39(5), 965–82. Spivak, Gayayri C. 2004. “Righting Wrongs.” The South Atlantic Quarterly 103(2/3), 523–81. doi:10.1215/00382876-103-2-3-523. Stanley, Liz. 1990. “Feminist Praxis and the Academic Mode of Production: An Editorial Introduction.” In Feminist Praxis: Research,

31656_Clausen-black.indd 169

20-06-11 13:19

170

Sunny Man Chu Lau

Theory, and Epistemology in Feminist Sociology, edited by Liz Stanley, 3–19. London, UK: Routledge. Toohey, Kelleen, and Bonnie Waterstone. 2004. “Negotiating Expertise in an Action Research Community.” In Critical Pedagogies and Language Learning, edited by Bonny Norton and Kelleen Toohey, 291–310. New York, ny: Cambridge University Press. Troman, Geoff. 2000. “Teacher Stress in the Low-Trust Society.” British Journal of Sociology of Education 21, 331–53. Zembylas, Michalinos. 2005. Teaching with Emotion: A Postmodern Enactment. Greenwich, ct: Information Age Publishing. – 2013. “Affective Citizenship in Multicultural Societies: Implications for Critical Citizenship Education.” Citizenship Teaching and Learning 9(1), 5–18. doi:10.1386/Ctl.9.1.5_1. – 2014. “Rethinking Race and Racism as Technologies of Affect: Theorizing the Implications for Anti-Racist Politics and Practice in Education.” Race, Ethnicity and Education. doi:10.1080/13613324.201 4.946492. Zeni, Jane. 1998. “A Guide to Ethical Issues and Action Research.” Educational Action Research 6(1), 9–19. doi:10.1080/096507998002 00053.

31656_Clausen-black.indd 170

20-06-11 13:19

10 Teacher Candidates’ Relationships to Knowledge and to Their Practices for Critical and Activist s t s e Education Sarah El Halwany, Majd Zouda, Chantal Pouliot, and ­Larry Bencze

introduction

Socio-scientific issues, also referred to as s t s e (an acronym for Science, Technology, Society, and the Environment) issues in Canadian educational contexts, have been one major medium through which educators and researchers recognized links between science education and citizenship education (Pedretti and Nazir 2011; Sadler 2011). s t s e issues describe controversies or potential (social/environmental) problems stemming from interactions among fields of ­science, technology, societies, and environments – such as debates about the merits of pharmaceuticals, pesticide uses, and climate change. In Ontario science documents for middle and secondary levels, s t s e education is stated as the first goal of science learning, followed by acquiring science skills and knowledge (e.g., Ministry of Education 2008). As we are becoming increasingly aware of and anxious about hazards linked to st se issues, such as those regarding climate change (e.g., Klein 2014), politicizing st se instruction can provide students with abilities to revisit relationships that they entertain with their surroundings and to take actions for social and environmental justice (Alsop and Bencze 2014; Bencze 2017). However, for various reasons, teachers may be ill-equipped to undertake this task. Action research is, accordingly, conceived as one viable route for teachers to reconsider

31656_Clausen-black.indd 171

20-06-11 13:19

172

S. El Halwany, M. Zouda, C. Pouliot, and ­L. Bencze

their practices and understandings of those practices that might facilitate critical and activist stse implementation (Hodson 2003; Pedretti and Hodson 1995). In this chapter, we describe two intertwined forms of action research that took place in the context of a teacher education course at the University of Toronto. This course was designed to enable teacher candidates to be involved in reflecting, analyzing, and acting on stse issues that might be causing harms to the well-being of individuals, societies, and environments. We explore their learning experiences using notions of “relationship to knowledge” (Charlot 1997), accounting for epistemic, social, and identity dimensions of knowledge (Pouliot, Bader, and Therriault 2010). Later in the course, pre-service teachers implemented a modest teaching lesson with a group of Grade 9 students to get them to appreciate the complexities of s t s e issues and the need to take action. In other words, the course was designed to engage teacher candidates in action research from various contexts (McNiff 2013) and from their different identity positions and ways of being in the world. Those two approaches to action research seemed to influence teachers’ relationships to critical and activist stse education. We conclude the chapter with some future implications, including the need to account for the intertwined nature of epistemic, social, and identity dimensions of action researchers’ relationships to their practice and to their world as they learn to politicize their practices on stse issues. t e c h n i c a l , p r a c t i c a l , a n d e m a n c i pat o r y action research

Action research (a r ), broadly understood, is a form of self-reflective inquiry that results in “action” or a change of some sort in one’s practices. The term “action research” is often associated with Kurt Lewin (1946), who visualized the process as a spiral of cycles of reflectingplanning-acting-observing. With increased “domestication of a r ” (Carr and Kemmis 2005), many have cautioned against a reductionist view of action research in terms of equating it with sequential steps to mechanically follow (e.g., McNiff 2013). Action research is not a research method or a procedure but a commitment to a form of social enquiry that recognizes “the explicit possibility of acting differently as a result of progressively learning from experience” (McTaggart 1994, 315).

31656_Clausen-black.indd 172

20-06-11 13:19



Teacher Candidates’ Relationships to Knowledge 173

The literature on action research is rich with diverse conceptualizations that attest to the complexity of the field (Rearick and Feldman 1999). For our present purposes, we will limit our discussion to reviewing the theoretical basis of action research. Carr and Kemmis (1986) and, earlier, Grundy (1982) describe three variants of action research that derive from Habermas’s (1978) knowledge constitutive-interests, those being: technical, practical, and emancipatory. In technical action research, problems are defined at the outset, and the focus is on efficient and effective practice to achieve pre-determined goals. Technical action research is thus product-­ oriented (Grundy 1982). Practical action research, on the other hand, is more “process-­ oriented” (Grundy 1982). While technical action research deals with how to apply an idea or a program, practical action research is about achieving self-understandings and negotiating meanings that would later inform actions. Emancipatory action research is based on the view that self-understandings may be distorted by larger social conditions (Habermas 1978), and so the purpose of emancipatory ar is “to elucidate these conditions and reveal how they can be eliminated” (Carr and Kemmis 2003, 136). The action researcher asks critical questions that deal with the “what for” of education rather than merely the “how” (Carr and Kemmis 1986). Emancipatory a r is arguably encapsulated in a view that defines “action research as a form of self-reflective enquiry undertaken by participants in social situations in order to improve the rationality, justice, coherence and satisfactoriness of (a) their own social practices, (b) their understanding of these practices, and (c) the institutions, programs and ultimately the society in which these practices are carried out” (McTaggart 1994, 317). s c i e n c e e d u c at i o n f o r c r i t i c a l and activist citizenship

Roberts (2011) outlines two visions for the purposes and goals of science education. Vision I is targeted toward acquiring science knowledge and skills to facilitate students’ entry into science-related fields, while vision II defines scientific literacy in terms of the “usefulness” (Feinstein 2011) of scientific knowledge and its relationship to everyday life. Recently, Sjöström, Eilks, and Zuin (2016) proposed a vision III oriented toward critical perspectives on technoscience fields

31656_Clausen-black.indd 173

20-06-11 13:19

174

S. El Halwany, M. Zouda, C. Pouliot, and ­L. Bencze

coupled with activist dispositions for social and environmental justice. Perhaps one difference between visions II and III could be the extent of students’ politicization for collective participation in decision-making on technoscientific issues (Santos 2009). In line with a vision III conception of scientific literacy, science educators and researchers have been calling for a politicized, issuebased science curriculum for preparing politically and scientifically literate citizens who care not only about their own well-being but also the well-being of others and their environments (Alsop and Bencze 2014; Hodson, 2011). s t s e issues form the backbone of an issuebased science curriculum. Hodson (2003) specifically advocated teaching about s t s e issues from a citizenship perspective by suggesting that s t s e issues could be approached according to four levels of sophistication. Lev el 1 : Appreciating the societal impact of scientific and technological change and recognizing that science and technology are, to some extent, culturally determined. Level 2: Recognizing that decisions about scientific and technological development are taken in pursuit of particular interests and that benefits accruing to some may be at the expense of others. Recognizing that scientific and technological development is inextricably linked with the distribution of wealth and power. Lev el 3: Developing one’s own views and establishing one’s own underlying value positions. Lev el 4 : Preparing for and taking action (Hodson 2003, 655). However, current stse education does not necessarily give enough attention to the social and political nature of stse issues (Pedretti and Nazir 2011). While there is some indication in Ontario science curricula for conceiving and evaluating possible plans of action on stse issues, no actual implementation of those plans is mentioned. One could say that official science documents lean toward liberal views of democracy favouring personal positions and choice for individual well-being over collectivist orientations for public good (Hodson 2010). Amidst a fairly apolitical s t s e education, students are likely to develop apathy and political disinterestedness in decision-making

31656_Clausen-black.indd 174

20-06-11 13:19



Teacher Candidates’ Relationships to Knowledge 175

(Davies 2008) on issues that ultimately affect their own well-being as well as the well-being of their surroundings. A possible obstacle for active citizenship may be related to the absence of human “signposts” (Ladson-Billings 2005, 78) because students lack adult models (e.g., teachers, parents) that exhibit this kind of civic engagement. Hodson (2003) recognizes that politicizing s t s e education is a “formidable undertaking” and that it can be achieved when teachers themselves become critically involved in reshaping their practice. He emphasizes the need to engage teachers in doing action research. This action research is necessarily emancipatory because it will free teachers “from the dictates of compulsions of tradition, precedent, habit, coercion, as well as from self-deception” (Grundy 1982, 28). It will bring “unwelcomed truths” (Kemmis 2006) about how schooling restricts students’ choice for learning and how (science) education may become complicit in reproducing neoliberal ideals centred on preparing compliant and conforming subjects as opposed to critical and active citizens (Bencze and Carter 2011; Hoeg and Bencze 2017; Kennelly and Llewellyn 2011). r e l at i o n s h i p t o k n o w l e d g e

We find that the notion of “relationship to knowledge” (Charlot 1997) is an especially useful construct to use when discussing action research and even more useful when discussing a form of action research that allows citizens to (re-)examine relationships that they maintain with their world. Relationship to knowledge refers to “meanings and values that one ascribes to oneself, others and to learning situations” (Charlot 1997, 74). How one defines their relationship to that knowledge is entangled with how they see themselves, how they view others, and meanings that they attach to situations in which knowledge is constructed. The epistemic, identity, and social dimensions of one’s relationship to knowledge are not mutually exclusive; rather, they overlap and interconnect to characterize individuals’ perceptions and/or engagement with their world (Charlot 1997; Pouliot, Bader, and Therriault 2010) . As we engage in cycles of action research, we form understandings that shape and are shaped by how we understand ourselves, others, and our learning contexts. Our knowledge is thus necessarily relational rather than an outside objectified entity (Latour 2005). This relationship to knowledge may particularly develop among action researchers who engage in practical and emancipatory forms

31656_Clausen-black.indd 175

20-06-11 13:19

176

S. El Halwany, M. Zouda, C. Pouliot, and ­L. Bencze

of action research. This is not to say that those who conduct more technical forms of action research do not have a relationship to knowledge. In fact, any form of knowledge (whether technical, practical, or emancipatory) presupposes a “rapport” between a subject, others, and the context of learning (Charlot 1997). For instance, in action research with a technical orientation, the knowledge that is generated is predicated on a view of others (and in some cases of oneself) as tools in execution of a plan or idea, and the environment is often seen an object for control (Grundy 1982). In contrast, in a practical ar, the action researcher views others as indispensable in making sense of the learning environment, which is seen as a product of human interpretation. Emancipatory ar perceives the environment as coercive and individuals as deceived by their own taken-for-granted assumptions and subjective meanings (Habermas 1978). Thus, we make the claim that in (re)constructing self/collective understandings rather than solely gathering data to “test” the successes of a particular intervention, action researchers might become more inclined to (re)define their relationships with their surroundings and with their practices. Our study looks particularly at the extent to which a teacher education course allowed teacher candidates to (re-)examine their own relationships to science and possibly their teaching practices surrounding s t s e education. description of the context of the study

This study took place in the context of a teacher education course at the University of Toronto/o i se . The course, entitled Science and Technology in Context, was offered weekly (four hours/week) from September through December and was taught by Larry (fourth author), assisted by Majd (second author). The course was conceived as an elective course to supplement other Curriculum and Instruction courses offered as part of the teacher education program. In previous work undertaken in the same context (El Halwany, Zouda, Pouliot, and Bencze 2017), we identified some factors that seemed to influence pre-service teachers’ relative commitments to implement critical and activist s t s e education. In this chapter, we further unpack participants’ relationships to those factors, and we show how the course resonated with larger goals of action research. The course was developed based on the s t e p w i s e pedagogical framework (stepwise stands for Science and Technology Education Promoting Wellbeing of Individuals, Societies and Environments), a framework developed by the fourth author (Bencze 2017) and

31656_Clausen-black.indd 176

20-06-11 13:19



Teacher Candidates’ Relationships to Knowledge 177

represented in figure 10.1. The general goal of stepwise is to engage students in self-directing their own Research-informed and Negotiated Action (rina) projects on stse issues (as seen on the upper right-hand side of figure 10.1). r ina projects refer to action projects aimed at involving students in: investigating s t s e issues of personal interest, identifying networks of power, and conducting secondary (e.g., Internet searches) and primary (e.g., correlational study) research on environmental and social problems linked to stse issues. This studentled research would culminate in taking socio-political actions to address problems in st se relationships. However, for students to be able to self-direct their rina projects, an “apprenticeship” phase is usually needed in which the teacher would scaffold students’ relevant attitudes, skills, and knowledge. A rin a apprenticeship is thus composed of three stages in which: 1) students reflect on pre-conceptions about s t s e issues, research, and action; 2) teacher teaches about problematic stse issues, research, and action; and 3) students practise r in a projects, supported by the teacher. Larry construed this teacher education course in ways that allowed pre-service teachers to: 1) engage in doing their own rina projects based on their own interests and 2) learn to facilitate r ina projects in their practice as prospective teachers. Pre-service teachers experienced first-hand a rina project when Larry facilitated lessons and activities about stse issues, research, and action. Then they had to identify various powerful and often “hidden” stakeholders or “actants” that influence decisions on stse issues. Borrowing from actor-network theory, or ant (Latour 2005), teacher candidates constructed network maps showing connections among living, non-living, and semiotic actants. A network map could engage students in reconsidering their views on the nature of science (Fountain 1999), which might in turn allow teacher candidates to better plan their research and target their actions. We wish to clarify at this point that teacher candidates were not engaged in doing an action research in the formal sense. The course instructor did not refer to his course as a deliberate process of doing “action research.” Nonetheless, we illustrate in our results section that those experiences fit well with a definition of action research broadly understood as a form of reflective inquiry for educational/social change. pa rt i c i pa n t s

Twenty-eight teacher candidates were enrolled in this course. Of them, fourteen consented to participate in our research. For more in-depth

31656_Clausen-black.indd 177

20-06-11 13:19

31656_Clausen-black.indd 178

20-06-11 13:19

Students Practise –  they practise nR iNA projects, with teacher support as necessary, to address pST S E relationship(s) of their choice –  projects are as SD/ O E as students desire

CE

TDSD

OE

Students Reflect –  they express “A S K ” about S T S E relationships & actions (with ­preparation) to address problems –  activities are mostly S D/ O E

Students’ RiNA Projects –  e.g., students do Internet research about perfumes/colognes and study a correlational study of peers’ uses of them – results of which they use to develop & implement a network of actions (e.g., YouTube™ video with Facebook™ & Twitter™ support) –  all projects are S D & OE

Teacher Teaches –  teacher leads lessons & activities to help students to learn about pS T S E relationships & nRiNA projects –  lessons/activities are mostly T D & C E

PROCEDURES: Teacher-Directed (TD ) Student-Directed (SD) CONCLUSIONS: Closed-Ended (CE) Open-Ended (O E)

LEGEND A S K = Attitudes, Skills, & Knowledge pS T SE = problematic relationships among fields of Science & Technology and Societies & Environments nR iN A = networked Research-informed & Negotiated Action(s)

Figure 10.1  S TE P WI S E pedagogical framework

•

•

•



Teacher Candidates’ Relationships to Knowledge 179

analysis, we focus our discussion on reporting the experiences of five pre-service teachers who consented to participate in at least two of the three interviews conducted and who completed all coursework assignments. Luke and Max had PhD degrees in science. Lewis, a practising chef, was from a non-science background. Ava had a bachelor’s degree in physical and health education, and Hannah had a master’s degree in mechanical engineering. All participants’ names are pseudonyms to maintain their anonymity. Participants, working in groups, investigated a range of stse issues such as plastics recycling, beef consumption, and fuel-powered vehicles. methodology

This study could be viewed as a case study (Stake 2005) that uses ethnographic approaches for collecting and reporting results (Denzin 1997). A case study would allow us to gain particularistic and in-depth understandings of the extent to which action research enables preservice teachers to (re)construct meanings about themselves, others, and their practice. As an observer-participant (Gold 1958), the lead author here (Sarah) conducted ethnographic fieldwork, observing participants and collecting data for the duration of the course. Chantal (third author) brought her expertise and knowledge of the framework “relationship to knowledge” (Pouliot, Bader, and Therriault 2010), which can be largely traced to French scholarship. Larry (assisted by Majd) would be ideally viewed as the action research facilitator (r f ). As a facilitator, Larry’s role was far from neutral (McTaggart 2002) in that his course was an invitation for pre-service teachers to reflect on the larger society and the context of their work to affect change. As part of standard ethical practice, Larry was not aware of who decided to participate in this study, since participants’ projects constituted a mandatory component of their coursework. Throughout the duration of the course, Sarah took on the responsibility for communicating with participating teacher candidates, as well as gathering, organizing, and analyzing data. Data collected included:   1 Participants’ coursework: Various learning artefacts, e.g., ­ pre-service teachers’ reflections on the extent to which schools should engage students in generating their own knowledge and taking actions on st se issues.

31656_Clausen-black.indd 179

20-06-11 13:19

180

S. El Halwany, M. Zouda, C. Pouliot, and ­L. Bencze

  2 Microteaching lesson plans and reflections: During a short microteaching session at a public school in Toronto, teacher candidates worked in pairs to plan and implement a short lesson to a group of Grade 9 students. In thirty minutes, teacher candidates had to introduce their chosen s t s e issue, explore students’ preconceptions about the issue, highlight its complexity specifically with regard to competing interests of various stakeholders, and encourage students to undertake further research while recognizing the need to take action. Then each participant reflected on this episode of microteaching.   3 Three semi-structured interviews, each for around fifty minutes: Sarah conducted two interviews, one at the beginning and the other toward the end of the course. After grades were submitted, Larry conducted a third interview with participants. During the interviews, participants reflected on their experiences doing r ina projects as well as on their microteaching. We further engaged participants in reflections on the extent to which they felt any different as citizens but also as teachers willing to transform their classrooms into sites of inquiry and actions.   4 Classroom field notes: Sarah observed and took field notes from six out of the seven course lectures as well as the microteachings. For the purpose of this study, we analyzed data qualitatively for codes and themes through an iterative process, going back and forth between our themes, codes, data, and theory (Charmaz 2014). Also, as collaborators, we met regularly to try to make sense of the data and to discuss codes and themes that were emerging as we were analyzing participants’ responses. r e s u lt s

Preamble In this section, we begin by describing two forms of action research that unfolded in this teacher education course. The first action research engaged participants – from their different positions (e.g., students, citizens, scientists, activists) – in a reflective inquiry on their roles in managing stse issues. Following our description of this ar situation,

31656_Clausen-black.indd 180

20-06-11 13:19



Teacher Candidates’ Relationships to Knowledge 181

we explore ways by which participants (re)defined their relationships to stse issues, research, and activism. During the second action research, participants had a modest opportunity to practise teaching about st s e and rin a in a realistic classroom context (i.e., the microteaching episode) at a local secondary school. Toward the end of the course, they reflected on their microteaching experiences. This second approach to action research was intended to support pre-service teachers in learning to teach for citizenship as per the fourth level outlined in Hodson’s (2003) curricular model (i.e., preparing for and taking action). Later, we investigated the extent to which those two forms of action research might have reinforced one another to develop pre-service teachers’ relationships to critical and activist s t s e education.

R iNA Apprenticeship: An Action Research Model for Citizenship With an understanding of action research as a form of continuing learning in a variety of contexts (McNiff 2013), we present in this section a form of action research undertaken by pre-service teachers for improving their own practices as critical and activist citizens. This model is based on the st e p wi se framework. Although s t e p w i s e was developed primarily for pedagogical purposes, as described earlier, it is a model that encourages responsible and activist citizenry through a critical examination of powerful groups’ influences on science and technology fields, followed by taking actions to address social and environmental problems. The stepwise framework is best articulated through a rina apprenticeship, which can be likened to a facilitated a r cycle. During a rina apprenticeship, a facilitator would support individuals in developing the knowledge, skills, and attitudes needed to conduct inquiries on a particular s t s e issue and to take sociopolitical actions. The stages that comprise the r ina apprenticeship are comparable to the phases of reflecting-planning-acting-observing typically used in ar. Those cycles are repeated as needed to enhance teacher candidates’ sense of agency as knowledge producers and citizen activists. Gradually, individuals develop their expertise and confidence as activist citizens in democratic societies. In the context of this course, the research facilitator asked teacher candidates to situate themselves in relation to the stse issue they were investigating. The aim was to help

31656_Clausen-black.indd 181

20-06-11 13:19

182

S. El Halwany, M. Zouda, C. Pouliot, and ­L. Bencze

teacher candidates ascertain how their own agency as individuals in a society exists outside their immediate body and that each single actor (including themselves) is embedded in a network (Latour 2005). Another aim was to help them reflect on how their place in a network with relation to other entities influences how they would approach an stse issue in their daily lives. The word “Negotiated,” as per the letter N in r in a , suggests a process of collaborative reflection (Rearick and Feldman 1999) on knowledge and action among members of the group and/or among pre-service teachers in interactions with the course instructor. Negotiations of understandings are also individual processes of meaning-making as participants attempt to reconcile preconceptions with new knowledge. Those negotiations were at the basis of how some participants might have reflected on their relationships to knowledge and perhaps their practice (see sections below). Although one may say that in the process of doing r in a, participants remain distant from their object of study, we demonstrate in the next section that the r ina project is as much about understanding others as it is about coming to understand oneself and others in relation to the knowledge generated. Because it concerns social and collective change to address social and environmental harms caused by science and technology applications, engaging in the phases of r in a may ideally allow citizens to be emancipated from anthropocentric, individualistic, consumerist, ambivalent relationships that individuals may have with themselves, others, and their surroundings (Martusewicz, Lupinacci, and Schnakenberg 2010). In that sense, we argue that individuals who critically investigate and take actions on s t s e issues might be tacitly engaging in an emancipatory form of action research (Grundy 1982). Participants’ Relationships to Knowledge Some of the participants talked about how in the process of doing r in a , they were able to “see” interactions among s t s e issues more clearly. Hannah mentioned that she was previously “blind to factors” that affect fields of science and technology. Ava remarked that the rina project made her “want to look at the bigger picture and see all parts of the story.” This theme around “seeing” (or making the invisible visible) could be translated to suggest instances of “reconnaissance” (Lewin 1946). In those instances, participants’ gaze is reflected

31656_Clausen-black.indd 182

20-06-11 13:19



Teacher Candidates’ Relationships to Knowledge 183

inwards, allowing them to redefine themselves in relation to knowledge they acquired while doing rina (e.g., in Ava’s saying, “To know that I don’t know enough”). In the specific case of this research, the act of “seeing” or reconnaissance seems to be, epistemologically speaking, associated with naturalist views of the nature of science – a conception that acknowledges psychological, sociological, political, and other influences on knowledge construction in science (see El Halwany et al. 2017). Hannah’s involvement in rina made her aware of the need to think “critically and not judgmentally.” She mentioned that she had a “tendency in being emotionally invested,” leading her “to automatically point fingers.” The project allowed her to “judge more on evidence and become engaged in going and looking for evidence.” It appears that the r ina project enabled Hannah to develop different relationships with herself, with others, and with her world – as a person who actively seeks evidence and is less judgmental and more critical (which, for her, also meant being less emotionally invested). Lewis expressed greater skepticism about the work of scientists, reconsidering his views on what he once believed to be disinterested individuals. He came to recognize his own “bias towards thinking what scientists do and that scientists may be compelled to work in ways that do not necessarily help everyone.” He further felt that the r in a project allowed him to redefine his relationship to the world from the realm of the private (making personal choices) to that of the public (influencing the collectivity). This was evident when he expressed the view that the project allowed him to see that he could have an impact “other than just changing [his] diet.” On the other hand, Ava mentioned that even prior to taking this course, she “hated plastics bags and avoided them personally at all cost, as did all [her] family.” She talked about how she was already driven to get people (like her roommates) to stop using plastics and said that the “rina project did not change that at all.” Yet she perceived that the project helped her to “see multiple connections in science, technology, societies, and environments.” While her views could be interpreted to suggest a disconnect between her (changed) relationship to knowledge (as an epistemic dimension) and her (unchanged) relationship to herself and to others, we remain cautious not to make such a claim but rather ponder, from a “relationship to knowledge” perspective, how views on the nature of science may come to subtly influence how we encounter ourselves and others.

31656_Clausen-black.indd 183

20-06-11 13:19

184

S. El Halwany, M. Zouda, C. Pouliot, and ­L. Bencze

With regard to knowledge generation, Max perceived himself to be better positioned to conduct r ina compared to the “average” citizen because of his own scientific background and training in the “hard” sciences. He talked about how he “was consciously aware to reduce his bias” and said that this would “naturally come from [his] training as a scientist.” According to him, this would position him as different from “average persons” because “they don’t have the inclinations that I do and because they don’t have the knowledge that I have.” In this instance, Max defines his knowledge in terms of something that the “average” individual lacks. This “lack” of knowledge partly characterizes the rapport that he has with others. While previous research explored students’ relationships to experts (Pouliot 2011), there is some evidence in this chapter that illuminate experts’ (i.e., teacher candidates with PhDs in sciences) relationships to lay people. Given that those “scientists-experts” happen to be prospective teachers, it might be relevant to explore how those assumed relationships with lay citizenry translate into pedagogical relations with students in classrooms. One finding points to a theme on emotions as part of engaging in action research. Max perceived himself to be better equipped at producing knowledge because he could control his own emotions and “passion” when conducting research. Similarly, Hannah mentioned the importance of controlling one’s emotions because they might obstruct critical thinking. For them, emotions could interfere with the ability to do “good” research and think critically. Those early findings push us to reconsider the role of emotions in knowing generally and in action research more specifically. Building on the premise that action research involves certain relationships to knowledge and that meanings that individuals attach to their surroundings comprise embodied and affective undertones (Lemke 2015), future research could further explore emotional rapports that constitute and are constituted by action researchers’ relationships with their (changing) worlds. Still, Max had a more ambivalent attitude toward taking actions as part of the r ina project. He specifically mentioned that “the lack of feedback” on his group’s action (in the form of a poster) prevented him from reconsidering the effectiveness of their action. His relative frustration with rina might thus be explained by the fact that the course did not engage his group enough in reconsidering their actions as part of developing their abilities as active citizens.

31656_Clausen-black.indd 184

20-06-11 13:19



Teacher Candidates’ Relationships to Knowledge 185

An Action Research Approach: Learning to Teach for Citizenship Although participants were not a priori informed that they would be conducting “action research” on their practice, the course’s underlying aim was to help pre-service teachers develop commitment for critical, reflective, and activist science education. At the level of classroom practice, the course emphasized elements of action research approaches to curriculum, pedagogy, and teacher–student relationships. With regard to curriculum, teacher candidates, guided by Larry, reflected on the extent to which science education restricts students’ choices in directing their inquiries and abilities to take actions. Larry further engaged teacher candidates in critical reflections on neoliberal attitudes in societies centred on individualism as opposed to collectivism. He suggested that schools might be emphasizing autonomous, individualistic notions of learning that might be inhibiting any social action or change (Carter 2005; Hoeg and Bencze 2017). He was shedding light on the potential of viewing everything as interconnected, as part of an actor-network, to institute change. This included reconsidering their relationships to the curriculum “as a politically constructed” document, among other actants that constitute the educational system. Larry also invited teacher candidates to see themselves as agents of change. For instance, he would ask them: “What could you do as a teacher to re-align actants for more responsible and activist citizenship?” Realizing that they are part of a larger network might empower them to take informed decisions about how they choose to enact the curriculum and to actively reorganize actants that would sustain their work. At the level of pedagogy, teacher candidates independently developed educational materials and resources to guide their prospective students in rina apprenticeships. While emphasizing the importance of developing those materials for modelling r in a , Larry reminded pre-service teachers that one purpose of those resources is to prepare students to self-direct their own inquiries, continually emphasizing that their role as teachers need not be about “training dependence.” During the microteaching, teacher candidates made use of those resources to elicit students’ preconceptions about an s t s e issue, introduce ant, and encourage students to do more research and (later) take actions. They later reflected on their microteaching to determine

31656_Clausen-black.indd 185

20-06-11 13:19

186

S. El Halwany, M. Zouda, C. Pouliot, and ­L. Bencze

the extent to which they were successful in implementing what they had originally intended for their students. A layer of technical “tweaks” to how they would approach their lesson was thus inevitable as part of learning how to teach for critical and activist citizenship. In other words, a technical orientation to action research was necessarily embedded in a more emancipatory one. At the level of student–teacher relationships, Larry strived to model democratic principles for teaching and learning. He emphasized independent thinking, expression of alternate viewpoints, and studentdirected research to ensure “fitness of purpose” (Evans et al. 2009) between democratic teaching and living in a democracy. Students seemed to appreciate the need for more open-ended instruction, evident in Luke’s saying: “You want to educate students to be citizens to think on their own, they should be critical thinkers.” Participants’ Relationships to Their Practice In considering those two forms of action research, some readers may conclude that our results suggest an epistemological distinction between the two. On the contrary, it seems that participants were actively negotiating their own experiences with the rina projects with their identities as prospective teachers who were contemplating – to various extents – the use of rina in their classrooms. Those negotiations appeared to be even more complex when accounting for participants’ own previous experiences and educational backgrounds. At some points, we noted how participants’ personal engagement in their rina projects reinforced their perceptions of themselves as teachers capable of implementing rina in their future practice, as was captured in this quote from Hannah: “I feel having done it especially if I were to teach rina , I can say to my students, ‘if I can do it, you can do it.’ It’s a doable project and it made me more passionate teaching about it. It’s more motivating to students to see that their teacher did it and that they can do it”. By relating to her students through a commonly experienced project, Hannah might have developed embodied (Alsop 2011) connections to her teaching that might have provided her with a certain feel of authenticity as a future teacher. This authenticity in teaching may emanate from a situation in which she perceived herself as “a human signpost” (Ladson-Billings 2005) for her future students, having in a sense “talked the talk and walked the walk” of active citizenship.

31656_Clausen-black.indd 186

20-06-11 13:19



Teacher Candidates’ Relationships to Knowledge 187

Lewis expressed greater confidence in his ability to teach about stse issues because of the overlap that he found between his rin a topic (beef sustainability), his identity as a chef, and his views on science teaching. This complex interaction between rina, the microteaching, and his own culinary practices allowed him to imagine himself teaching beyond the insulated walls of specific disciplines. He said, “I felt kind of empowered.” On the other hand, Max expressed that he faced various challenges with his own rina project that “didn’t lend extra enthusiasm” to his experiences teaching about r ina in the microteaching. Luke attached a positive meaning to his experiences in the micro­ teaching. He and his partner devised an activity to get students to consider the interactions between various actants associated with the stse issue on plastics. Reflecting on this activity, he said, “At first, students had linear view of actants instead of interrelated. At the end, students had a better view and they viewed the actants to be much more linked … I think that was successful.” Luke attributed a positive meaning to his practice (“I think that was successful”), possibly developing a stronger rapport with regard to his abilities to teach about the complexity of st se issues. Interestingly, Luke’s own perception of himself as a citizen activist didn’t change after engaging in r ina because he already considered himself a citizen activist. Luke was part of a group that promotes fishing and conservation in Toronto areas and “had participated in shoreline cleanup and habitat restoration.” He mentioned that “activism was always there [for him] and that rina didn’t change that much on a personal level.” However, engaging in rina helped him to think in terms “of bringing st se issues to students.” In this instance, rin a was primarily valued as a pedagogical tool, evident in how Luke expressed a new rapport with his practice. r e f l e c t i o n s a n d f u t u r e c o n s i d e r at i o n s

Politicizing st se instruction may be facilitated when teacher candidates are provided with opportunities to reflect on their relationships to their practice not only as teachers-to-be but also as individuals occupying different positions in the world. In this case, teaching for active citizenship was preceded by learning the “how” and the “why” for active citizenship. This sheds light on how action research and identity construction are inseparable and points to possible merits in

31656_Clausen-black.indd 187

20-06-11 13:19

188

S. El Halwany, M. Zouda, C. Pouliot, and ­L. Bencze

allowing action researchers to reflect on their multiple identities and their different ways of being in the world (e.g., chef, scientist, activist) when engaging in educational action research. This might in turn enable teachers to develop greater identification and rapport with(in) their practices. Our results further expand on one earlier finding that suggests that ways participants experienced and engaged in rina depended on their own educational backgrounds and views of the nature of science (see El Halwany et al. 2017). This chapter further highlighted that participants’ relationships with critical and activist s t s e education could be traced to complex interactions of meanings that individuals attach to themselves, to others, and to the nature of science as experienced in this course. Had it not been for the limited timespan of the course, we believe that participants might have developed positive identifications vis-à-vis their roles as active citizens and politicized teachers if they were involved in continuous cycles of reflecting, planning, and acting. The notion of teachers becoming “human signposts” for their students was particularly evident among some of the participants and might have resulted in experiences of embodied and authentic teaching. A word of caution is in order, however. While some of the participants expressed greater willingness to address r ina in their practice, several remained skeptical about their ability to do so in a system that prioritizes heavy-content teaching and where limited time tends to obstruct efforts to undertake lengthy projects such as rina. Hannah, for instance, wondered how “to incorporate rina and get through all the curriculum, especially as new teachers.” Previous research has shown that when teacher candidates were given opportunities to self-direct their own inquiries, they developed an emotional commitment to teach about rina (Bencze and Sperling 2012). Our study reinforces this finding, evident in how some participants expressed greater confidence in teaching about rina given their personal engagement in their own projects. Since action research is primarily conducted by individuals based on their own concerns, it is likely that their personal identification, and possibly their emotions, will influence and emerge from their experiences as they generate new knowledge and take actions. Yet an early indication of our research hints at a view whereby pre-service teachers may consider emotions intrusive to processes of knowing. With an understanding of teaching and learning as “emotional practices” (Hargreaves 2000), future work may examine affect and emotions as alternate ways of knowing in action research (Leitch and Day 2000).

31656_Clausen-black.indd 188

20-06-11 13:19



Teacher Candidates’ Relationships to Knowledge 189

Finally, we would like to acknowledge that our collaboration with a scholar from another Canadian province (in this case, Quebec) enriched our theoretical approaches to action research and allowed us to become exposed to the notion of relationship to knowledge, largely derived from French-speaking countries. We think that much can be learned about action research with similar contributions across different linguistic and disciplinary scholarships within and outside Canada.

references

Alsop, Steve. 2011. “The Body Bites Back!” Cultural Studies of Science Education 6(3), 611–23. Alsop, Steve, and Larry Bencze. 2014. “Activism! Toward a More Radical Science and Technology Education.” In Activist Science and Technology Education, edited by Larry Bencze and Steve Alsop, 1–19. New York, ny: Springer. http://link.springer.com/ chapter/10.1007/978-94-007-4360-1_1. Bencze, Larry. 2017. Science and Technology Education Promoting Wellbeing for Individuals, Societies and Environments: stepwise . Vol. 14. Cham, Switzerland: Springer. https://books.google.ca/books?hl= en&lr=&id=LWgpDwAAQBAJ&oi=fnd&pg=PR5&dq=STEPWISE+Be ncze&ots=mJZoGH03f1&sig=_ABozEQZP3KDVlGRzYDOUL4Y15k. Bencze, Larry, and Lyn Carter. 2011. “Globalizing Students Acting for the Common Good. Journal of Research in Science Teaching 48(6), 648–69. Bencze, J. Lawrence, and Erin R. Sperling. 2012. “Student Teachers as Advocates for Student-Led Research-Informed Socioscientific Activism.” Canadian Journal of Science, Mathematics and Technology Education 12(1), 62–85. Carr, Wifred, and Stephen Kemmis. 1986. Becoming Critical: Education, Knowledge and Action Research. London, UK: Falmer. – 2003. Becoming Critical: Education, Knowledge and Action Research. London, UK: Routledge. https://books.google.ca/books?hl=en&lr=&id= eVGPAgAAQBAJ&oi=fnd&pg=PP1&dq=Becoming+critical:+Education ,+Knowledge+and+Action+Research&ots=tbQY-3Y08y&sig=8ao6CnL hzjVecD8kgCmh5MYBOPk. – 2005. “Staying Critical.” Educational Action Research 13(3), 347–58. Carter, Lyn. 2005. “Globalisation and Science Education: Rethinking Science Education Reforms.” Journal of Research in Science Teaching 42(5), 561–80.

31656_Clausen-black.indd 189

20-06-11 13:19

190

S. El Halwany, M. Zouda, C. Pouliot, and ­L. Bencze

Charlot, Bernard. 1997. «Du rapport au savoir: éléments pour une ­théorie.» Paris, France: Anthropos. Charmaz, Kathy. 2014. Constructing Grounded Theory. New York, ny: Sage. https://books.google.ca/books?hl=en&lr=&id=v_GGAw AAQBAJ&oi=fnd&pg=PP1&dq=Charmaz,+K.+(2014).+Constructing+ grounded+theory+(2nd+ed.).+New+York:+Sage.&ots=YVZvL7HEf3&s ig=oo1WQnysWYAPvPWp3fG-Gmm9FFY. Davies, Ian. 2008. “Political Literacy.” The sage Handbook of Education for Citizenship and Democracy, 377–87. London, UK: Sage. Denzin, Norman K. 1997. Interpretive Ethnography: Ethnographic Practices for the 21st Century. London, UK: Sage. https://books.google. ca/books?hl=en&lr=&id=7ELBV1vlMLsC&oi=fnd&pg=PR11&dq=Int erpretive+ethnography:+Ethnographic+practices+for+the+21st+century &ots=H0TlCWTtRE&sig=O9fCvxqlCrYmTsbpubwCKJ0LtPY. El Halwany, Sarah, Majd Zouda, Chantal Pouliot, and Larry Bencze. 2017. “Supporting Pre-Service Teachers to Teach for Citizenship in the Context of s ts e Issues.” In Science and Technology Education Promoting Wellbeing for Individuals, Societies and Environments: stepwise , edited by Larry Bencze, 405–27. Cham, Switzerland: Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-55505-8_18. Evans, Mark, Leigh Anne Ingram, Angela MacDonald, and Nadya Weber. 2009. “Mapping the ‘Global Dimension’ of Citizenship Education in Canada: The Complex Interplay of Theory, Practice and Context.” Citizenship Teaching and Learning 5(2), 17–34. Feinstein, Noah. 2011. “Salvaging Science Literacy.” Science Education 95(1), 168–85. doi:10.1002/sce.20414. Fountain, Renee-Marie. 1999. “Socio-Scientific Issues via Actor Network Theory.” Journal of Curriculum Studies 31(3), 339–58. Gold, Raymond L. 1958. “Roles in Sociological Field Observations.” Social Forces 36(3), 217–23. Grundy, Shirley. 1982. “Three Modes of Action Research.” Curriculum Perspectives 2(3), 23–34. Habermas, Jürgen. 1978. “Knowledge and Human Interests.” https://­ philpapers.org/rec/HABKAH. Hargreaves, Andy. 2000. “Mixed Emotions: Teachers’ Perceptions of Their Interactions with Students.” Teaching and Teacher Education 16(8), 811–26. Hodson, Derek. 2003. “Time for Action: Science Education for an Alternative Future.” International Journal of Science Education 25(6), 645–70.

31656_Clausen-black.indd 190

20-06-11 13:19



Teacher Candidates’ Relationships to Knowledge 191

– 2010. “Science Education as a Call to Action.” Canadian Journal of Science, Mathematics and Technology Education 10(3), 197–206. – 2011. Looking to the Future. Springer Science and Business Media. https://books.google.ca/books?hl=en&lr=&id=gM1YOff3SQgC&oi=fn d&pg=PR3&dq=Looking+to+the+Future&ot s=I_aQTV-KF4&sig=HV_sKIL2BQveSKMMR6XUPfd-dLo. Hoeg, Darren, and Larry Bencze. 2017. “Rising against a Gathering Storm: A Biopolitical Analysis of Citizenship in stem Policy.” Cultural Studies of Science Education 12(4), 843–61. Kemmis, Stephen. 2006. “Participatory Action Research and the Public Sphere.” Educational Action Research 14(4), 459–76. Kennelly, Jacqueline, and Kristina R. Llewellyn. 2011. “Educating for Active Compliance: Discursive Constructions in Citizenship Education.” Citizenship Studies 15(6–7), 897–914. doi:10.1080/13621025.2011. 600103. Klein, Naomi. 2014. Capitalism vs. the Climate. Alternative Radio. http:// www.honors200malta2016.com/uploads/2/8/1/0/28105949/capitalism_ vs._the_climate_%7C_the_nation.pdf. Ladson-Billings, Gloria. 2005. “Differing Concepts of Citizenship: Schools and Communities as Sites of Civic Development.” In Educating Citizens for Global Awareness, edited by Nel Nodding, 69–80. New York, ny: Teachers College Press. Latour, Bruno. 2005. Reassembling the Social: An Introduction to ActorNetwork-Theory. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press. https://books. google.ca/books?hl=en&lr=&id=AbQSDAAAQBAJ&oi=fnd&pg=PR7 &dq=Reassembling+the+social:+An+introduction+to+actor-networktheory.+&ots=9i-UAl1fsV&sig=O5XvwF4uOoHgNMx_PX-3oVwKjsM. Leitch, Ruth, and Christopher Day. 2000. “Action Research and Reflective Practice: Towards a Holistic View.” Educational Action Research 8(1), 179–93. Lemke, Jay. 2015. “Feeling and Meaning: A Unitary Bio-Semiotic Account.” In International Handbook of Semiotics, edited by Peter Pericles Trifonas, 589–616. Dordrecht. Netherlands: Springer Netherlands. http://link.springer.com/10.1007/978-94-017-9404-6_27. Lewin, Kurt. 1946. “Action Research and Minority Problems.” Journal of Social Issues 2(4), 34–46. McNiff, Jean. 2013. Action Research: Principles and Practice. London, UK: Routledge. https://books.google.ca/books?hl=en&lr=&id=wCTzD9 PMQ_0C&oi=fnd&pg=PR3&dq=Action+research:+Principles+and+pra ctice&ots=PS7vsqVH-A&sig=SX_qXE9LHRaEltRvWiFKTYLYwyQ.

31656_Clausen-black.indd 191

20-06-11 13:19

192

S. El Halwany, M. Zouda, C. Pouliot, and ­L. Bencze

McTaggart, Robin. 1994. “Participatory Action Research: Issues in Theory and Practice.” Educational Action Research 2(3), 313–37. doi:10.1080/ 0965079940020302. – 2002. “Chapter 1: Action Research Scholar: The Role of the Scholar in Action Research.” Counterpoints 183, 1–16. Martusewicz, Rebecca A., John Lupinacci, and Gary Schnakenberg. 2010. “EcoJustice Education for Science Educators.” In Cultural Studies and Environmentalism, 11–27. Springer. http://link.springer.com/ chapter/10.1007/978-90-481-3929-3_3. Ministry of Education. 2008. The Ontario Curriculum, Grades 9 and 10: Science. Toronto, on : Queen’s Printer for Ontario. http://www.edu.gov. on.ca/eng/curriculum/secondary/science910_2008.pdf. Pedretti, Erminia, and Derek Hodson. 1995. “From Rhetoric to Action: Implementing s ts Education through Action Research.” Journal of Research in Science Teaching 32(5), 463–85. Pedretti, Erminia, and Joanne Nazir. 2011. “Currents in stse Education: Mapping a Complex Field, 40 Years On.” Science Education 95(4): 601–26. Pouliot, Chantal. 2011. “Post-Secondary Students’ Relationship to People They Consider to Be Scientific Experts.” Research in Science Education 41(2), 225–43. Pouliot, Chantal, Barbara Bader, and Geneviève Therriault. 2010. “The Notion of the Relationship to Knowledge: A Theoretical Tool for Research in Science Education.” International Journal of Environmental and Science Education 5(3), 239–64. Rearick, Mary L., and Allan Feldman. 1999. “Orientations, Purposes and Reflection: A Framework for Understanding Action Research.” Teaching and Teacher Education 15(4), 333–49. Roberts, Douglas A. 2011. “Competing Visions of Scientific Literacy.” In Exploring the Landscape of Scientific Literacy, edited by Cedric Linder, Leif Östman, Douglas A. Roberts, Per-Olof Wickman, Gaalen Ericksen, and Allan MacKinnon, 11–27. London, UK: Routledge. Sadler, Troy D. 2011. “Situating Socio-Scientific Issues in Classrooms as a Means of Achieving Goals of Science Education.” In Socio-Scientific Issues in the Classroom: Teaching, Learning and Research, edited by T.D. Sadler, 1–10. New York, n y: Springer. Santos, Wildson L. P. Dos. 2009. “Scientific Literacy: A Freirean Perspective as a Radical View of Humanistic Science Education.” Science Education 93(2), 361–82. doi:10.1002/sce.20301.

31656_Clausen-black.indd 192

20-06-11 13:19



Teacher Candidates’ Relationships to Knowledge 193

Sjöström, Jesper, Ingo Eilks, and Vânia G. Zuin. 2016. “Towards EcoReflexive Science Education.” Science and Education 25(3–4), 321–41. Stake, Robert E. 2005. “Qualitative Case Studies.” In The sage Handbook of Qualitative Research (3rd ed.), edited by N.K. Denzin and Y.S. Lincoln. Thousand Oaks, ca: Thttp://psycnet.apa.org/ record/2005-07735-017.

31656_Clausen-black.indd 193

20-06-11 13:19

11 The Role of Action Research Tools in Facilitating Teacher Professional Learning An Activity Theory Analysis Karen Goodnough

A strong body of evidence has shown that collaborative action research may be used to foster the development of teacher learning and classroom practice. To examine what and how teachers learn through action research–based professional development, CulturalHistorical Activity Theory (c h at ) is being proposed as a heuristic to understand the complex interactions that support teachers in promoting expansive learning. This will be illustrated using data collected from a large-scale professional development program focused on stem (Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics) teaching and learning. introduction

This chapter provides insight into how collaborative action research can be a catalyst for teachers’ professional learning. Through the adoption of c hat, a framework that views human learning as complex and socially situated, the experiences of school-based teacher inquiry groups in stem are examined as they engaged in one cycle of action research. The interactions among elements of their activity system are described, with a focus on how contradictions or tensions in their activity system became sources of learning and change.

31656_Clausen-black.indd 194

20-06-11 13:19



The Role of Action Research Tools in Professional Learning

195

Action research has been used for many decades as a means of engaging teachers in professional learning (McNiff and Whitehead 2002; McTaggart 1997; Sagor 2000; Somekh 2005). Its importance in teacher education for both teacher candidates and practising teachers is well established because it provides a systematic approach for practitioners to examine their classroom practice and to make informed changes that may positively affect students, schools, and communities. For example, it has been adopted in teacher preparation programs to enhance teacher candidates’ subject matter knowledge (Hourigan and O’Donoghue 2015), to contribute to an understanding of the development of teacher identity (Burn 2007), and to support teacher candidates’ development as they learn to teach in the context of school-based internships (Faikhamta and Clark 2015). In terms of teacher professional development, it has been adopted in many subject areas for a range of purposes, such as the development of teacher identity, the cultivation of communities of practice, and the adoption of innovative educational technology (Goodnough 2011; Goodyear and Casey 2015; Mazur, Brown, and Jacobsen 2015). In studying teacher learning and professional development, researchers are beginning to recognize the value of Cultural-Historical Activity Theory, or chat (Engeström 2000; 2001), to study and understand how teachers engage in activities within activity systems. In other words, chat can provide a lens through which to understand the complex, real-world activity of individuals and groups as they engage in collective, collaborative social practices. chat is a theoretical framework that can be used by researchers to analyze qualitative data collected in a variety of research approaches, as well as provide a mechanism for practitioners to understand their activity in relation to particular situational and historical contexts (Engeström 1987; Kaptelinin 2005; Wilson 2014). Moreover, through this lens the reciprocal impact of context and activity on each other can be determined. the teachers in action

(tia)

program

The main goals of the tia program are to support K-9 teachers in becoming more confident in teaching in s t e m subjects and to assist them in adopting inquiry-based approaches to teaching and learning in stem. Teachers are recruited through an application process, which is supported by a provincial school district. In each year of the program,

31656_Clausen-black.indd 195

20-06-11 13:19

196

Karen Goodnough

currently in its final year, seventy to 100 teachers engage in inquiry through collaborative action research. They are supported with classroom-­based resources, release time to work on their inquiry projects (seven days per teacher), and a tia leadership team consisting of the author (project lead), a full-time professional development facilitator, a part-time coordinator, and graduate students. Through face-toface meetings, online meetings, and communication by email, the leadership team provides ongoing support, guidance, and facilitation as the teachers plan and implement their projects. Topics are chosen based on the interests and needs of the participating teachers. The approach to action research is teacher-driven. The teachers choose the topics, and, in collaboration with the tia leadership team, determine how the project will unfold. As part of school-based teams, the teachers engage in planning a change, implementing the change, observing the outcomes of the change, and reflecting on the outcomes of the change (Kemmis and McTaggart 2005). Some teams participate for one year, completing one cycle of action research, while others teams participate for two or three years. This chapter is informed by data collected from seventy teachers in the first year of the project. All were new action researchers, with the exception of one teacher. In August of each year, teachers participate in a two-day workshop that focuses on topics such as the nature of action research, what it is, and how it is conceptualized; how to identify an area of focus; how to plan a study and formulate research questions; and how to collect and analyze data in relation to those questions. In addition, there is a focus on stem teaching and learning. Teachers are introduced to and share approaches to teaching and learning stem through inquiry (e.g., how to plan inquiry-based lessons, using iPad tools to facilitate learning in stem subjects). In each action research cycle, planning typically occurs by teacher teams from September to January, and implementation and data collection and analysis occur from February to June. The seven release days are used to plan interventions; share, reflect, collect, and analyze data; and develop a multimedia presentation that is a synthesis of their research. Examples of teacher research questions have included: a) How can the flipped classroom be used to motivate students in science? b) How can inquiry be used to help students take more responsibility for their learning in science? c) How can collaborative problem-solving be used in math classrooms to enhance students’ understanding of concepts? While the teachers engaged in collaborative action research, the author

31656_Clausen-black.indd 196

20-06-11 13:19



The Role of Action Research Tools in Professional Learning

197

collected data from the teachers using a case study approach (Merriam 1998). In this instance, the teachers within the context of the t i a program were the focus of the case. Multiple sources of data were used to gain understanding of how collaborative action research, as adopted in the program, was used to foster teacher learning. Data sources and methods included a short survey to ascertain demographic information and reasons for joining the program; school-based meeting notes; classroom observation by the t i a leadership team; transcribed final teacher interviews; teacher-generated documents such as ongoing written reflections and a written plan of action, generated by each school-based team, to guide implementation of action research projects; and the creation of multimedia presentations that were representations of their learning. The data collected by teachers from their students were used as secondary data by the author to inform data analysis. c h at was used as a framework to organize the findings, to examine how the teachers engaged in professional activities, to examine changes in the outcomes of their activity system, and to examine the role of contradictions in enabling teacher development. The names of teachers used in this chapter are pseudonyms. Before examining the experiences of the teachers through a ch at lens, the author will provide an overview of the theory and its key principles. t h e n at u r e o f c h at

c h at is currently being used in many disciplines to capture and understand the complexities of human activity. It can be viewed as a theory for praxis, providing a productive means to “overcome some of the most profound problems that have plagued both educational theorizing and practice” (Roth and Lee 2007, 186). Because actions are part of an overall activity system and embedded in social contexts (Nardi 1996), c hat allows one to understand the complexities that exist and emerge in natural settings. As part of chat, Vygotsky (1978; 1986) developed the notion of mediation. He hypothesized that artifacts (e.g., physical and language tools) are used by individuals (subjects) to mediate human action to achieve an object or goal. This was further developed by Alexei Leontiev (1981), who moved beyond the individual, conceptualizing human activity as part of collective social activity that incorporates other elements such as community, division of labour, and rules. The model was expanded by Engeström (1987), resulting in the well-known “triangle,” the basic unit of analysis for

31656_Clausen-black.indd 197

20-06-11 13:19

198

Karen Goodnough Tools

Subjects

Norms

Object

Community

Outcomes

Division of labour

Figure 11.1  The basic unit of analysis in chat

chat. This visual depiction of the interacting components of an activity system (subject, object, tools, community, norms, and division of labour) is represented in figure 11.1. In any activity system, the subjects are the individuals or groups who are involved in the activities of the activity system; the subjects are the “who” or the “eye” of the activity system (Engeström and Miettinen 1999). The subjects work toward an object or motive using tools that may be material or psychological, such as computers, language, or teaching strategies. The subjects are part of a community or social group as they engage in the activity, while norms are the customs, standards, or established practices that enhance or hinder community activity and functioning. In achieving the object, there needs to be a division of labour within the community. This division refers to “the role each individual in the community plays in the activity, the power each wields, and the tasks each is held responsible for” (Bellamy 1996, 125). The activity system results in outcomes that may lead to innovation, change, or expansive learning (Anthony, Hunter, and Thompson 2014; Engeström 2001). Foundational to chat are several key principles: the triangle, multivoicedness, historicity, transformation, and contradictions (Engeström 1999). In addition to the c h at triangle, the basic unit of analysis, activity systems are multi-voiced. They reflect the diverse views, beliefs, and experiences of the subjects and the histories of the embedded tools,

31656_Clausen-black.indd 198

20-06-11 13:19



The Role of Action Research Tools in Professional Learning

199

norms, and conventions of the activity system. Thus, the historicity of a system, another key principle, may change and transform over long periods of time and shape ongoing activities. “An expansive transformation is accomplished when an object and motive of the activity are reconceptualised to embrace a radically wider horizon of possibilities than in the previous mode of activity” (Engeström 2001, 137). Systemic contradictions may arise in activity systems, affecting how the components of a system interact. Kuutti (1996, 34) states that “activity theory uses the term contradiction to indicate a misfit within elements [of an activity system], between them, between different activities, or between different developmental phases of a single activity.” These dilemmas, conflicts, tensions, or disruptions within or between activity systems (Engeström and Sannino 2010) may become sources of change. This enables subjects to achieve the object, or, vice versa, contradictions may become barriers to change, preventing the subjects from achieving activity system goals. Engeström (1987) identified four types of contradictions that may create tensions in an activity system. Primary contradictions occur when more than one value is attached to a component of the activity system and conflict arises, while secondary contradictions occur as conflict between the components of a system as a result of a new element being introduced. Tertiary contradictions occur when a more culturally advanced form of an activity is introduced into the system. Quaternary contractions occur when conflict arises between adjacent activity systems. An example of each of these contradictions was identified by Yamagata-Lynch and Haudenschild (2006). Within the context of university and school partnerships, they examined the social structures that challenge and complicate teacher professional development. Primary contradictions occurred because school districts and teachers assigned different value systems to professional development (e.g., teachers wanting to participate in professional development that would improve curriculum versus the school district offering professional development mainly for the purpose of accreditation or licence renewal). Secondary contradictions arose between the rules or norms and the object of the activity system. Job requirements competed with professional development requirements, thus increasing teachers’ workload and making the object of the activity system difficult to achieve. Tertiary tensions arose when teachers were expected to attend mandated professional development, but the suggested changes that teachers were expected to make in their activity system did not meet

31656_Clausen-black.indd 199

20-06-11 13:19

200

Karen Goodnough

their classroom needs. As well, in this study professional development that introduced teachers to new teaching approaches resulted in a quaternary contradiction. In some instances, the professional learning program necessitated a change in a teacher’s overall approach in all curricular areas rather than smaller curricular changes. Thus, tension arose between their current activity system and a future activity system. shifting perspectives and practices

The Subjects In the first year of the project, sixty-two primary/elementary teachers from sixteen different schools in Newfoundland and Labrador, Canada, engaged in action research. There were sixteen shared inquiries, with each of these teams ranging in size from two to eight teachers. The average years of teaching experience was 15.82; four teachers had five or fewer years of experience, twelve had between six and ten years of experience, twenty-six were mid-career with eleven to nineteen years, and twenty had twenty to twenty-eight years of experience. With the exception of six, teachers had very little formal preparation to teach science and math, having completed a maximum of two courses in each area and having completed only one methodology course in math or science. Teachers also reported, when completing the pre-study survey, having few, if any, opportunities to avail themselves of professional development in science. Opportunities in math were more frequent. While teachers varied in their comfort level in teaching math and science, 80 per cent of the group reported that they were not comfortable teaching science. They were far more comfortable teaching mathematics. While most of the teachers described their math curricula as being “collaborative,” “inquiry-based,” and based on “varied instructional approaches,” the scenario for science was less promising. Teachers reported that their teaching of science was more traditional, with little emphasis on guided inquiry. The Object One of the main goals of the t i a program is to support teachers in developing their pedagogical content knowledge and confidence in stem disciplines. This aligns with the object of the teachers’ activity system. While some focused their inquiry projects on math or science

31656_Clausen-black.indd 200

20-06-11 13:19



The Role of Action Research Tools in Professional Learning

201

and others adopted an integrated approach to stem, teachers joined the project for one or more of the following reasons: to develop their confidence in teaching science, to adopt new instructional approaches and technologies to better address curriculum outcomes, and/or to improve student learning. For example, Sharon wanted to offer ­students more “hands-on learning opportunities” in science, while Veronica saw the potential for inquiry to ensure “that the diverse needs of all students are met.” Brad noted his desire to develop his own confidence in teaching science, as well as “help[ing] his students to become more confident and independent learners.” Likewise, Debbie expressed a need to allow students to explore concepts by creating opportunities for her students to “take the lead in their learning.” While the teachers desired to change various aspects of their classroom practice, they lacked the confidence to do so or did not have the necessary opportunities or tools to effect change. Tools In the tia program, the teachers adopted a variety of tools (tools they had not used prior to this project) to plan and implement their action research projects. In some instances, the teachers created new tools, while for other purposes they adopted existing tools. The main tool that allowed them to engage in professional learning was the action research cycle. An inherent part of the overall cycle was the use of a number of sub-tools that supported teacher reflection, planning, data collection and analysis, data interpretation, and the sharing of research outcomes. For example, in order for teachers to engage in the action research cycle, the school-based teams needed to meet on a regular basis to formulate their research questions, review literature, develop a plan for how they would address their research questions, analyze their data, and plan for a final sharing conference. In addition, during implementation teachers adopted new pedagogical tools such as the flipped classroom and inquiry-based approaches to teaching and learning. In other instances, the tools included new forms of assessment or technology. Table 11.1 provides a list of the tools adopted or created, explaining why each was used. During both the debriefing meetings and the final interviews, teachers talked about the value of collaborative action research as a tool to foster their professional growth. For example, the comments of Monica, a Grade 5 teacher, represent the perspective of many of the

31656_Clausen-black.indd 201

20-06-11 13:19

202

Karen Goodnough

Table 11.1 Tools used by teachers during their action research projects Tools

Purpose

Action research tools Plan of action

To guide planning during the conceptualization of a project Data collection tools To determine the impact on student learning and self-assessment by teachers re their own learning Evernote To foster reflection Data analysis and interpretation To synthesize and interpret data; to determine outcomes of the study Ongoing collaborative meetings To enable sharing, planning, debriefing, etc. Multimedia presentations To synthesize teachers’ overall learning; to describe the project; artefact to share with other educators Final sharing conference To share the outcomes of the projects Pedagogi cal Tools Technological tools (e.g., iPads and applications, web tools)

Conceptual tools (flipped classroom, curriculum integration, inquiry instruction, etc.) Lesson plans Assessment tools

To support student learning. Tools were used for various purposes (e.g., taking pictures during implementation, fostering conceptual understanding of math concepts, student feedback and organization through Edmodo) To foster student-centred learning; to develop problem-solving skills; to help students develop science process skills To provide a guide for implementation of the action research projects To collect student data to gain insight into their learning

teachers: “This project and the inquiry process gave us the opportunity to see a new teaching approach. It gave us the opportunity and time to actually learn about it, practice it and put it in place. Whereas a lot of times when we have other professional development days, we go outside, we do our professional development day, and it stops there because you don’t have the time to do it or you don’t have the budget to do it a lot of times too. And in this case, it gave us the opportunity not only to learn a new teaching approach, but to also develop ourselves by doing research ourselves.” The tools used or created by the teachers were both physical and conceptual, allowing for internal thinking and processes to become

31656_Clausen-black.indd 202

20-06-11 13:19



The Role of Action Research Tools in Professional Learning

203

externalized through the process of mediation and the creation of artifacts (Engeström 1990). Likewise, the “development of thoughts and cognitive activity requires social interaction and exchange with a physical environment” (Fjeld et al. 2002, 155). Thus, social interaction with the environment and tools resulted in the teachers’ cognitive development. By following a systematic process of inquiry, with ­support, they were able to engage in the processes of internalization and externalization. Community Teachers are part of many communities, interacting and working with many individuals and groups as they complete their daily activities. As part of the t i a program, the teachers expanded their community beyond their immediate school to include teachers from other schools, outside community organizations, and members of the tia team. The author and project lead, a full-time professional development facilitator, a part-time coordinator, and research assistants provided support to the teachers as they moved through the action research cycle. This took many forms, such as teaching them about action research, attending planning meetings, securing resources, and providing encouragement and moral support when needed, to name a few. Furthermore, while the teachers’ community prior to participation in the project included other teachers and educators, they now had an opportunity to work more intensively, over time, with school-based colleagues in a more systematic way through the action research process. Division of Labour In order to achieve the object, there needs to be a division of labour. In the school-based action research groups, the teachers assumed different roles to achieve their object. In most projects, one teacher within a group assumed a strong leadership role in keeping the team organized and on task. Other roles were negotiated, such as finding appropriate literature for the group to read to inform the conceptualization of their projects, selecting and evaluating classroom resources, organizing data files for the group, etc. There was a horizontal division of labour, although all group members collaborated equally on many tasks (e.g., discussing literature and ideas to inform planning, developing lesson plans, designing assessment tools). The varying roles

31656_Clausen-black.indd 203

20-06-11 13:19

204

Karen Goodnough

teachers played in the group, as described by the teachers in their interviews, included “mentor for the new teachers,” “writer,” “technology expert,” and “hands-on person.” Norms Norms or rules, whether implicit or explicit, can affect the activity system functioning. The implementation of the teachers’ action research projects was done in the context of their normal teaching responsibilities, which required the teachers to change some of their typical norms of being the focus in the classroom. In other words, the teachers’ typical practices needed to be challenged and changed if they were to reach the object of creating student-centred learning environments through inquiry. Teachers began to share more of the power in their classrooms with students, and this became evident in observations of their classrooms and in analyzing their reflections. Examples of these shifting norms were reflected in comments such as “we are doing more collaborative work,” “I am more of a facilitator now,” and “I did learn how to let go of control.” Sheri, during an interview, shared how her role and the roles of the students changed: “I just saw firsthand the true value of students being the teacher and the students being the ones sharing and being so happy and eager to want to go get the information and come back and share.” The teachers were also guided by expectations for the tia project (considering and acting in an ethical manner as it relates to action research, being willing to have the university researcher collect data, collecting their own data in their classrooms, etc.). At times, these expectations constrained the teachers’ work as competing activities vied for their time. In other instances, teachers were very strategic in merging their t i a work with other curricular activities so that they became more efficient. For example, during planning many groups integrated outcomes from other curricular areas, such as language arts and/or social studies, into their math or science curricula. contradictions as sources of learning

As teachers completed one cycle of action research over a one-year period, contradictions were uncovered between several elements of their activity system. The process of action research and the tools adopted allowed them to view their roles through a different lens and

31656_Clausen-black.indd 204

20-06-11 13:19



The Role of Action Research Tools in Professional Learning

205

to make changes in their practice. The teachers who participated in the tia program, for the most part, were generalists with little formal preparation in science or mathematics. This, in conjunction with very little emphasis being placed on science in the K-6 curriculum and a lack of access to professional development in science and mathematics, has historically created barriers to teachers creating student-centred, inquiry-based learning environments when teaching science (Ambrose 2004; Garet et al. 2001; Guillaume and Kirtman 2010). While teachers who joined the project wished to create more student-centred learning environments, they lacked the tools, time, and opportunity to do so. However, by experiencing a form of professional learning that reflects current research about what constitutes effective professional development (e.g., embedded in classroom practice, collaborative, ongoing, relevant, focused on students), teachers shifted from a traditional form of teaching and curriculum delivery to adopting an inquiry stance to teaching in stem subjects (Cochran-Smith and Lytle 2001; 2009). As Cochran-Smith and Lytle (2009, viii) have articulated, viewing teaching and learning from an inquiry stance involves “a way of being in the world of educational practice that carries across educational contexts and various points in one’s professional career and that links individuals to larger groups and social movements.” Through the action research cycle and using the tools of action research, the teachers were able to generate new knowledge, utilize the theory and research of others, and interrogate their own practice through systematic, structured investigation into issues and tensions that constrain practice. When reflecting on the value of this approach and the impact on their professional learning and practice, teachers noted key aspects of the experience that were critical to their new positioning. This is represented by one of the teachers in a reflection: “I’ve been teaching 22 years. I’ve been through a lot of professional development. A lot of the stuff I’ve had to go to has absolutely not interested me at all. This project has allowed me to be involved in something that means something to me. Even now when the project is over, I’m still learning. I’m still thinking. As I walk through the halls and I hear teachers in their classrooms teaching, I’m thinking … they could be doing that through the inquiry process. I am a different teacher now and will certainly approach things differently in the future” (Sandra). In addition to adopting a new stance to their classroom practice, the teachers were able to address a long-standing contradiction of primary-elementary teachers: not being comfortable or confident in

31656_Clausen-black.indd 205

20-06-11 13:19

206

Karen Goodnough

teaching science. During interviews, the teachers reported that they enhanced their content knowledge on particular topics and had now become facilitators of learning. Power shifted in the classrooms, so students had more “ownership of their learning,” “became more collaborative,” “were active learners,” and “experienced hands-on, mindson science.” The teachers noted that this shift from teacher-centred to student-centred was not always easy and required a “shift in [their] role and thinking” (Charles, Interview). conclusions

This chapter describes changing classroom-based activity systems as groups of teachers engaged in collaborative action research. Because the professional learning approach was teacher-centred and focused on the teachers’ needs and the needs of their students, the teachers became more confident in teaching science and enhanced their pedagogical content knowledge. By adopting the tools of action research and having an extended professional learning community, the teachers were enabled to implement new teaching and learning approaches in their classrooms. Likewise, they were then better positioned to address contradictions in their activity systems. Because c h at focuses on social, collective, and contextual learning, it provides a framework for considering the design and implementation of professional learning and how complex factors (e.g., teachers’ beliefs and perspectives, tools, norms, community) interact to enhance or hinder teacher learning (Roth and Tobin 2002). Collaborative action research provides one means of examining the reciprocal relationship between teacher activity and the context of learning. While collaborative action research is well established as a form of professional learning for K-12 teachers in many contexts, it needs to become an option for Canadian teachers who wish to engage in ­relevant, self-directed, collaborative research focused on their own practice. Forging professional collaborations among ministries of education, school districts, teacher unions, and university faculties of education with a focus on providing sustained professional learning and development is needed. Leadership is crucial at many levels (e.g., school-based instructional leaders, school district personnel, policymakers) for nurturing and supporting a climate of professional learning that incorporates teacher inquiry options such as collaborative action research. Collaborative action research can provide a vehicle

31656_Clausen-black.indd 206

20-06-11 13:19



The Role of Action Research Tools in Professional Learning

207

for teachers to both research their own practice and utilize the research of others. It should be considered one of the mainstays of professional learning, as workshops have been for many decades.

references

Ambrose, Rebecca. 2004. “Initiating Change in Prospective Elementary Teachers’ Orientations to Mathematics Teaching by Building on Beliefs.” Journal of Mathematics Teacher Education 7(2), 91–119. doi. org/10.1023/b:jmte.0000021879.74957.63. Anthony, Glenda, Roberta Hunter, and Zain Thompson. 2014. “Expansive Learning: Lessons from One Teacher’s Learning Journey.” zdm 46(2), 279–91. doi:10.1007/s11858-013-0553. Bellamy, Rachel K.E. 1996. “Designing Educational Technology: Computer-Mediated Change.” In Context and Consciousness: Activity Theory and Human-Computer Interaction, edited by Bonnie A. Nardi, 123–46. Cambridge, m a: m i t Press. Burn, Katharine. 2007. “Professional Knowledge and Identity in a Contested Discipline: Challenges for Student Teachers and Teacher Educators.” Oxford Review of Education 33(4), 445–67. doi:10.1080/ 03054980701450886. Cochran-Smith, Marilyn, and Susan L. Lytle. 2001. “Beyond Certainty: Taking an Inquiry Stance on Practice.” In Teachers Caught in the Action: Professional Development that Matters, edited by Ann Lieberman and Lynne Miller, 45–58. New York, ny: Teachers College Press. – 2009. Inquiry as Stance: Practitioner Research for the Next Generation. New York, n y: Teachers College Press. Engeström, Yrjö. 1987. Learning by Expanding: An Activity-Theoretical Approach to Developmental Research. Helsinki, Finland: OrientaKonsultit. – 1990. Learning, Working and Imagining: Twelve Studies in Activity Theory. Helsinki, Finland: Orienta-Konsultit. – 1999. “Innovative Learning in Work Teams: Analyzing Cycles of Knowledge Creation in Practice.” In Perspectives on Activity Theory, edited by Yrjö Engeström, Reijo Miettinen, and Raija-Leena Punamäki, 19–38. Cambridge, m a: Cambridge University Press. – 2000. “Activity Theory as a Framework for Analyzing and Redesigning Work.” Ergonomics 43(7), 960–74. doi:10.1080/001401300409143.

31656_Clausen-black.indd 207

20-06-11 13:19

208

Karen Goodnough

– 2001. “Expansive Learning at Work: Toward an Activity Theoretical Reconceptualization.” Journal of Education and Work 14(1), 133–56. doi:10.1080/13639080020028747. Engeström, Yrjö, and Reijo Miettinen. 1999. “Introduction.” In Perspectives on Activity Theory, edited by Yrjö Engeström, Reijo Miettinen, and Raija-Leena Punamäki, 1–18. Cambridge, ma : Cambridge University Press. Engeström, Yrjö, and Annalisa Sannino. 2010. “Studies of Expansive Learning: Foundations, Findings and Future Challenges.” Educational Research Review 5(1), 1–24. doi:10.1016/j.edurev.2009.12.002. Faikhamta, Chatree, and Anthony Clarke. 2015. “Thai Pre-Service Science Teachers Engaging Action Research during Their Fifth Year Internship.” Asia Pacific Journal of Education 35(2), 259–73. doi:10. 1080/02188791.2013.860011. Fjeld, Morten, Kristina Lauche, Martin Bichsel, Fred Voorhorst, Helmut Krueger, and Matthias Rauterberg. 2002. “Physical and Virtual Tools: Activity Theory Applied to the Design of Groupware.” Computer Supported Cooperative Work (cscw ) 11(1), 153–80. doi:10.1023/ a:1015269228596. Garet, Michael S., Andrew C. Porter, Laura Desimone, Beatrice F. Birman, and Kwang Suk Yoon. 2011. “What Makes Professional Development Effective? Results from a National Sample of Teachers.” American Educational Research Journal 38(4), 915–45. doi:10.3102/ 00028312038004915. Goodnough, Karen. 2011. “Examining the Long-Term Impact of Collaborative Action Research on Teacher Identity and Practice: The Perceptions of K–12 Teachers.” Educational Action Research 19(1), 73–86. doi:10.1080/09650792.2011.547694. Goodyear, Victoria A., and Ashley Casey. 2015. “Innovation with Change: Developing a Community of Practice to Help Teachers Move beyond the ‘Honeymoon’ of Pedagogical Renovation.” Physical Education and Sport Pedagogy 20(2), 186–203. doi:10.1080/17408989.2013.817012. Guillaume, Andrea M., and Lisa Kirtman. 2010. “Mathematics Stories: Preservice Teachers’ Images and Experiences as Learners of Mathematics.” Issues in Teacher Education 19(1), 121–43. Hourigan, Mairéad, and John O’Donoghue. 2015. “Addressing Prospective Elementary Teachers’ Mathematics Subject Matter Knowledge through Action Research.” International Journal of Mathematical Education in Science and Technology 46(1), 56–75. doi:10.1080/0020739X.2014. 936977.

31656_Clausen-black.indd 208

20-06-11 13:19



The Role of Action Research Tools in Professional Learning

209

Kaptelinin, Victor. 2005. “The Object of Activity: Making Sense of the Sense-Maker.” Mind, Culture, and Activity 12(1), 4–18. doi:10.1207/ s15327884mca1201_2. Kemmis, Stephen, and Robin McTaggart. 2005. “Participatory Action Research: Communicative Action and the Public Sphere.” In The sage Handbook of Qualitative Research (3rd ed.), edited by Norman K. Denzin and Yvonna S. Lincoln, 559–603. Thousand Oaks, c a : Sage. Kuutti, Kari. 1996. “Activity Theory as a Potential Framework for Human-Computer Interaction Research.” In Context and Consciousness: Activity Theory and Human-Computer Interaction, edited by Bonnie A. Nardi, 17–44. Cambridge, ma : mit Press. Leontiev, A. A. 1981. “Sign and Activity.” In The Concept of Activity in Soviet Psychology, edited by James V. Wertsch, 241–55. New York. ny: Sharpe. McNiff, Jean, and J. Whitehead. 2002. Action Research: Principles and Practice. London, UK: Routledge. McTaggart, Robin. 1997. Participatory Action Research: International Contexts and Consequences. Albany, ny: State University of New York Press. Mazur, Amber Danielle, Barbara Brown, and Michele Jacobsen. 2015. “Learning Designs Using Flipped Classroom Instruction | Conception d’apprentissage à l’aide de l’instruction en Classe Inversée.” Canadian Journal of Learning and Technology/La Revue Canadienne de ­l’apprentissage et de la Technologie 41(2). doi:10.21432/t2pg7p. Merriam, Sharan B. 1998. Qualitative Research and Case Study Applications in Education. San Francisco, c a : Jossey-Bass. Nardi, Bonnie A. 1996. Context and Consciousness: Activity Theory and Human-Computer Interaction. Cambridge, ma : mit Press. Roth, Wolff-Michael, and Yew-Jin Lee. 2007. “‘Vygotsky’s Neglected Legacy’: Cultural-Historical Activity Theory.” Review of Educational Research 77(2), 186–232.  Roth, Wolff-Michael, and Kenneth Tobin. 2002. “Redesigning an ‘Urban’ Teacher Education Program: An Activity Theory Perspective.” Mind, Culture, and Activity 9(2), 108–31. doi:10.1207/ S15327884MCA0902_03. Sagor, Richard. 2000. Guiding School Improvement with Action Research. Alexandria, va: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development. Somekh, Briget. 2005. Action Research: A Methodology for Change and Development. Maidenhead, UK: Open University Press.

31656_Clausen-black.indd 209

20-06-11 13:19

210

Karen Goodnough

Vygotsky, Lev Semenovich. 1978. Mind in Society: The Development of Higher Psychological Processes. Cambridge, ma : Harvard University Press. – 1986. Thought and Language. Cambridge, ma : mit Press. Wilson, Viv. 2014. “Examining Teacher Education through CulturalHistorical Activity Theory.” Teacher Education Advancement Network Journal (tean ) 6(1), 20–9. Yamagata-Lynch, Lisa C., and Michael Haudenschild. 2006. “Using Activity Theory to Identify Contradictions and Tensions in Teacher Professional Development.” Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association (a er a ), San Francisco, c a , April.

31656_Clausen-black.indd 210

20-06-11 13:19

12 Leadership Development through Action Research The Journey of One School District toward Collaboration, Inquiry, and Professional Learning Pamela Adams When leaders decide to shine a light on what’s happening in a school or district, they can’t do it halfway. Whether the light illuminated something that was pleasing or not, I couldn’t “unsee” it. I had a responsibility to ask tough questions and move into action. Superintendent

This chapter tells the story of one school system’s three-year journey of shining a light on their school and system leadership practices by implementing a collaborative inquiry model of professional learning. Similar journeys have been studied in various ways and in numerous educational contexts worldwide (Hallinger, Heck, and Murphy 2014; Sahlberg 2015; Timperley, Kaser, and Halbert 2014), resulting in more clearly articulated definitions of action research-esque processes (DeLuca et al. 2015), implications for educational leadership (Louis 2015), guidelines for providers of professional development (Nelson 2008), impacts on teacher learning (Butler and Schnellert 2012), and organizational change (Fullan 2010). The chapter will first identify recent literature that characterizes conversations about the increasingly acknowledged role of action research in transforming leadership practices at the system and school

31656_Clausen-black.indd 211

20-06-11 13:19

212

Pamela Adams

levels. A brief overview will be provided of literature about an emerging form of action research referred to as collaborative inquiry that is germane to the study described in this chapter. The research question and methodology will be presented and data offered to reveal ways that this collaborative inquiry–based model influenced system and school leadership practices. shifting mindsets to refocus the work: a vignette

Based on their year-long work to seek community and central office feedback about school operations, teaching effectiveness, and student learning, school principal Liza1 and vice-principal Chad met in August to craft a goal around improving middle school literacy for their students. They had been talking for months about the best way to achieve this goal and, as a first step, believed they could focus their September individual teacher growth plan conversations on helping teachers reflect about their most successful teaching strategies. They planned to build upon these conversations during monthly professional learning collaborative days to help teachers improve student achievement of literacy learning outcomes. Lisa and Chad had attended a series of professional development events a few months earlier aimed at creating problem-based learning units for students; they wondered if they could translate the idea of inquiry into how their teachers examined practical challenges and curiosity around improving literacy. To do so, Chad suggested they base their work on an essential question and model the process for the entire staff. Their first attempt at crafting a question produced frustration, in part because they were trying to convert many of the literacy strategies they wanted to implement into a question and also because they were trying to create an inquiry question for their staff rather than for themselves. They started with the question: How can we improve our middle school literacy results? However, this question seemed vague and unachievable; furthermore, Chad wasn’t sure that his expertise in physics could be applied to answering this question. Liza thought back to her master of education graduate work and recalled reading about using action research to achieve school goals. She had the insight that she and Chad needed to refocus their question to explore an area of leading teachers’ learning about literacy about which they were both curious. They began to brainstorm how they

31656_Clausen-black.indd 212

20-06-11 13:19



Leadership Development through Action Research 213

could be more useful to their teachers, and as they began to clarify their roles, their question shifted to one that represented an area about which they were both authentically interested: What changes in leadership practice and school structures can we implement that will positively influence teachers’ literacy pedagogy and student literacy outcomes in middle school classrooms? The school timetable was altered slightly when two teams of teachers came forward with a proposal to introduce greater flexibility into the weekly timetable. Teachers were given the opportunity to form themselves into teams, with dedicated time every week for the teams to meet. Liza and Chad reorganized their own administrative time to create space and time for this collaboration. In their monthly professional growth conversations with Liza and Chad, all teachers were encouraged to reflect on questions they had regarding their literacy goals and to plan specific professional learning activities, individually and collaboratively, around those literacy goals. At the final staff meeting in June, all teachers were asked to comment on their perceptions and experiences in answer to their school leaders’ professional inquiry question. The results of this survey provided Liza and Chad with data that they used to come to a preliminary answer to their inquiry question. Yet there was still much work to be done, and they both agreed that they would focus on various strategies to continue exploring answers to their inquiry question over the next eighteen months. a l i t e r at u r e s y n o p s i s 2

Since Lewin’s (1946) early writings about the use of action research to guide the work of health care practitioners and subsequent influential writings by Stenhouse (1975), Revans (1982), McTaggart (1994), and Carr and Kemmis (1986), action research has grown as a favoured strategy for studying educational phenomena. Recent literature about action research as a methodology has tended toward a typology approach. For example, Hendricks (2009) identified four types of educational action research: classroom, collaborative, critical, and participatory. Each category is based on the composition of the group undertaking the research and the relationship between group members. Spaulding and Falco (2013) similarly classified two types of action research: classroom and school, based upon the breadth of focus of the student learning under examination. Gordon (2008)

31656_Clausen-black.indd 213

20-06-11 13:19

214

Pamela Adams

posited three types of action research, all of which he maintains should be collaborative: individual, small group, and school-wide. Taking a more comparative approach, Mertler (2009) provided an overview of several elements of action research. He identified two primary characteristics of many recent models as cyclicity and iteracy, such as that in Stringer’s (2007) interacting spiral, Altrichter et al.’s (2008) nine-step loop, Costello’s (2011) four-stage process, Bruce and Pine’s (2010) continuous improvement trajectory (reminiscent of Berg’s [2004] upward spiral), and Riel’s (2016) progressive problem-solving cycles. Greenwood and Levin (2007) compared action research approaches through a socio-political lens and identified three categories: industrial democracy, liberationist, and collaborative inquiry. They refer to the latter as a co-generative model of pragmatic action research that most closely aligns with the core value of doing research with educators rather than on them and that underpins the collaborative inquiry approach taken in this study. a c t i o n r e s e a r c h o r c o l l a b o r at i v e i n q u i r y ?

Collaborative inquiry has been defined by Samaras (2011) as a personal and interpersonal way of thinking and knowing that results from learning in collaboration with others. Samaras included critical friends as one important element of this inquiry, maintaining that their role can facilitate insight as well as validate the legitimacy of participants’ claims. Donohoo (2013) also defined collaborative inquiry as a systematic approach to examining educational practice in a professional learning community. Butler and Schnellert (2012) were more specific in their definition of collaborative inquiry as a research method that uncovers important links between teacher inquiry, collaboration, and educational change. Collaborative inquiry is also gaining favour as a method for exploring issues of particular relevance to professional learning and educational leadership. As Emihovich and Battaglia (2000) contend, a collaborative inquiry approach contributes to strong, collaborative cultures in which teachers, principals, and college faculty study and learn together to pursue meaningful educational reform. They suggested that a collaborative inquiry model serves to reconcile the ­multiple variables in play when numerous educators from various contexts interact, when it can be difficult to ascertain which outcomes are influenced by which actions.

31656_Clausen-black.indd 214

20-06-11 13:19



Leadership Development through Action Research 215

Using a scoping review, DeLuca et al. (2015) analyzed commonalities in intent and process of forty-two studies that employed a collaborative inquiry approach, then compared and contrasted these and other studies claiming an action research approach. As a result of their review, they contended that an important area of future study should identify areas of convergence and divergence between action research and collaborative inquiry, as well as examine ways to sustain collaborative inquiry as a professional learning strategy and methodology. They pose a question of relevance to the study described in this chapter: How can collaborative inquiry become a systematic process for educator learning that contributes to the development of professional cultures in schools and districts? While the comparative elements of action research and collaborative inquiry appear unclear or, at best, nuanced, for purposes of this chapter the characteristics that defined the collaborative inquiry approach implemented and participated in by system and school leaders were threefold: 1) cyclicity and iteracy; 2) reflective action; and 3) collective and individual inquiry. This process was grounded in Loughran’s (1996) stages of reflection categorized as reflection for planning, reflection for action, and reflection for learning. This model of collaborative inquiry also owes much to the work of Zeichner (2003), Schmuck (2006), and Carson and Sumara (1997), conducted through a partnership between university researchers, central office administrators, and school leaders. c o - c r e at i n g t h e pa r a m e t e r s o f t h e s t u d y : a vignette

Superintendent Dorothy and her eight-member central office team were anticipating the announcement of significant provincial policy revisions around the skills and preparation of school principals and vice-principals. She and Craig, her associate superintendent, had been involved in consultation and development of the new policy and agreed that they would have to be proactive if they were to maintain their status as a district that effectively adapted provincial legislation to suit the unique needs of their teachers and students. Craig, in particular, was firm about asserting his support for a process that democratized and distributed responsibility for implementing the new policy. He posited that if school leaders could be involved in co-creating a systematic approach to their skill development, they would be more

31656_Clausen-black.indd 215

20-06-11 13:19

216

Pamela Adams

committed to enhancing their professional learning around leadership. Although not as certain, Dorothy and the rest of the team agreed that this would be the foundational value upon which they would build a program of support for each school leader. Over the previous fifteen years, Dorothy had been involved in successful school improvement action research projects in other districts and proposed that, as a first step in this leadership development process, a steering committee could be formed that was comprised of university researchers and representatives of central office, school leadership teams, and teachers. Two weeks later, the steering committee met and, over the course of an afternoon, agreed that they would embark upon a three-year project that would seek to achieve three primary goals: 1 Demonstrate a model of collaborative inquiry that would engage school leaders in their professional learning around the new competencies outlined in upcoming provincial policy. 2 Increase the skill set of system and school leaders to facilitate professional inquiry for teams of teachers. 3 Ascertain the costs and benefits of using a collaborative inquiry approach to increase school leaders’ competence and confidence. Accordingly, the steering committee titled this project Instructional Leadership Development (ild) and crafted a broad research question that would focus the activities, data collection, and recommendations of the project: What are the impacts of a collaborative inquiry approach on the development of school leader effectiveness? the context and process under study

The public school district that participated in this study employs approximately 550 teachers and serves more than 10,000 students in twenty-three school sites. While the district is often described as urban, it is situated in a small city of less than 100,000 people and is, therefore, classified as a “medium population centre” representative of a semi-rural context. The expectation that all school leaders in this district would demonstrate professional growth within a collaborative structure was hardfought over several decades. Many schools were geographically isolated and accustomed to independence with little accountability. Further

31656_Clausen-black.indd 216

20-06-11 13:19



Leadership Development through Action Research 217

complicated by a teachers’ strike that fractured some communities in the five years prior to this study, centralized initiatives were viewed with skepticism or suspicion. When a new superintendent was appointed to lead the district, she faced many challenges, not the least of which was uniting disparate communities and schools into a cohesive system with clearly aligned goals to improve students’ success, enhance teachers’ learning, and increase school leaders’ effectiveness. The Instructional Leadership Development project3 began with an off-site retreat in September 2012 attended by those with formal leadership responsibilities at the school or system level. At the retreat, all participants observed the superintendent engage in an activity with the retreat facilitators that modelled and mirrored the process to be implemented monthly over three years of the project, including identifying an inquiry question that would guide her professional activities and learning for the next twelve months. At the retreat, all system and school leaders agreed to a schedule of monthly meetings, collaborative workshops, and school visits beginning in October 2012 and concluding in June 2015. For three years, school leaders and the central office leadership team, together with university researchers, adhered to a plan characterized by consistent and unrelenting face-to-face support that demonstrated the superintendent’s value for “being there.” For eight months over each of three school years, external teams visited each of the twenty-three schools in the district. Each external team included one university researcher and at least two central office leaders. At the end of the first year, the central office team experimented with having volunteer principals and vice-principals involved as additional participants with each team. During each visit, school leadership teams were asked to reflect on what they had achieved over the previous thirty days as it related to their Professional Growth Plan – goals, guiding questions, strategies, targets, and evidence.4 This information formed the basis of discussions aimed at clarifying what team members had learned and how that learning could be shaped into evidence of progress toward answering their professional inquiry question. Each visit ended with statements about what members would accomplish in the following thirty days and what visiting team members could do to provide support. A written distillation of these meetings was provided by a recorder on the external team and forwarded to school leaders immediately after the visit for confirmation of the meeting’s decisions, as well as to focus the school leadership team’s professional learning activities for the upcoming month.

31656_Clausen-black.indd 217

20-06-11 13:19

218

Pamela Adams

A further aspect of the collaborative inquiry process was embedded in monthly district-wide administrator meetings during which time no less than an hour was set aside to revisit team and individual inquiry questions; to reflect upon and share the progress of goal-achievement; to demonstrate, practise, and learn particular instructional leadership skills and knowledge; and to exchange best practices in leading learning. d ata c o l l e c t i o n

At the end of three years, school and district leaders were invited to provide commentary on their experiences and offer answers to the primary research question in the form of a written survey and/or interview. Fifty-four participants provided written responses, and twenty-five system or school leaders were interviewed to offer their insights into the question: What did you experience to be the impacts of a collaborative inquiry approach on the development of school leader effectiveness? written survey responses

After thematic analysis5 of fifty-four written responses to the above research question, experiences were categorized as two types of “impacts”: increased capacity building and enhanced impact on teachers’ effectiveness. C o l l a b o r at i v e i n q u i ry b u i l d s l e a d e rs h i p c a pac i t y. The consensus of educational leaders in this district was that participation in collaborative inquiry contributed substantially to their and others’ leadership capacity. More than 74 per cent (n=40) of responses suggested that the collaborative inquiry model implemented in the project had the greatest impact in building leadership capacity in instructional leadership among school and district leaders. For example, a vice-principal of a large high school wrote that “I believe the project has had a tremendous impact on capacity building. Our Growth Plans acknowledge that every individual leader has unique needs. The collaborative inquiry process has created an environment that allows for growth through personal learning, and through the support and experience of colleagues.” One

31656_Clausen-black.indd 218

20-06-11 13:19



Leadership Development through Action Research 219

high school principal commented that “I’d like to think my capacity would have grown regardless of the structures around me. However, with great conviction, I believe the elements of our model made growth more deliberate and purposeful.” An experienced elementary school principal offered this assessment: “I have been a principal in this district for more than 20 years. This project has had the most significant impact on capacity building than anything else I have ever seen. Growth is being modeled throughout the district, elbow to elbow.” Several respondents commented specifically on the power of a monthly generative dialogue in contributing to an extended leadership capacity. One central office leader expressed perceptions typical of these responses. She stated that “Without the project, conversations about instructional leadership would not have reached the levels they have – quite significant conversations. The project has been the catalyst for these conversations to occur. They have substantially influenced leadership capacity right across the district.” Collaborative inquiry enhances teachers’ effectiveness. The next most frequently referenced impact of the collaborative inquiry model implemented in the project was participants’ perceptions that reflecting on, adopting, and refining leadership practices increased their presence in classrooms, promoted much greater contact with teachers, enhanced their skill in providing direction and support, and created greater confidence in their ability to assume the role of learning leader. In short, 61 per cent (n=33) of participants felt that collaborative inquiry increased their effectiveness in working with teachers. For example, an elementary school principal observed that “The comment, ‘It hasn’t happened in education until it happens to a child’ is pivotal in this project. The skills we have acquired as administrators have had a direct impact on our teachers and on our students.” Several respondents made similar reference to a tangential impact on student learning. One middle school vice-principal suggested that “As the project developed, teacher professional growth was focused more on student learning and student achievement.” Another explained that “Each site visit has shown me more connections between the Growth Plan and improved teaching and student learning. As the model has cascaded to teachers and eas, it has become more valuable.”

31656_Clausen-black.indd 219

20-06-11 13:19

220

Pamela Adams

According to a central office leader, “For those schools working with clear goals and a unified leadership team – nearly all schools – the results have been impressive. Teaching and learning have improved.” Another central office colleague echoed that thought: “Teaching and learning certainly improved but at varying rates, depending on the administrators and the staff members with whom they were working. Sustained commitment is the key!” Of the fifty-four written comments, forty-eight were positive or very positive. Yet a few participants offered the reminder that not all educators experienced extensive benefits from the collaborative inquiry approach. interview responses

From a volunteer sample of eleven principals, ten vice principals, and four members of the senior executive of the district (n=25), interview data analysis yielded three major themes specific to the impact of the collaborative inquiry process implemented through the Instructional Leadership Development project. They included, in order of frequency of references: 1) teacher growth; 2) leadership competence; and 3) reflective practice. C o l l a b o r at i v e i n q u i ry p ro m o t e s t e ac h e r g row t h . Thirteen respondents (52 per cent) identified their increasing ability to participate in richer, more meaningful conversations with teachers and interpreted this as an indicator of their increased leadership effectiveness. One school principal explained that “I’m able to have deeper conversations with my teachers about their classroom practice. This year I have focused on growth plan conversations with all my teachers and e a s.” Another stated that “My teachers’ growth plans are no longer simply compliance documents. They are an important part of the regular conversations we have about student success.” Six of these thirteen respondents made particular mention of their newly acquired “toolkit” that helped teachers to focus and sustain their professional learning about improved classroom practice. Strategies in these toolkits included questioning skills to foster reflection, improved modelling, better listening skills, and healthier relationships with staff. One school leader observed that “As I gained more skills, I became more helpful to more teachers.” Another explained that “I moved from management to instructional leadership over the

31656_Clausen-black.indd 220

20-06-11 13:19



Leadership Development through Action Research 221

last three years. By concentrating on key aspects of teaching practice, I was able to help most teachers grow.” A third indicated that “In Year I of the project, we could share information with our teachers. In Year II, we could model new skills. In Year III, we were able to promote team growth on our staff.” C olla bor at i v e i nq ui ry i nc re as e s l e ad e rs h i p co n f i dence. Fourteen respondents (56 per cent) indicated that as a result of their participation in the project, they were much more confident in their ability to provide leadership in their schools.6 One elementary principal observed that “I have been working on my instructional leadership skills for many years, but I think the [collaborative inquiry] structures and processes of this project have really crystallized my understanding of the importance and value of i l [Instructional Leadership].” An experienced middle school principal confided that “In the beginning of this project, a lot of people were uncomfortable. In those first administrator meetings, many people were frustrated, and some were annoyed that their leadership skills were being questioned. Now, all our school leaders are much more confident. For me, I can look at that list of Competencies and know I’m meeting the provincial standard.” Another principal expressed a similar sentiment: “As a result of this project, I am constantly referring to the Leadership Competencies. I see myself as both a leader of teachers and a leader of learning. After three years, I feel much more confident in judging my own performance and exploring the competencies.” According to a beginning vice-principal, it was a lunch meeting with the superintendent that gave her the confidence to concentrate on enhancing her competence. She reflected that “At the beginning of the project, I was one of those ‘deer in the headlights’ people. It seemed to me others knew more about leadership than I could ever know. Then, after that meeting with [the superintendent], I realized learning is a journey, and I stopped worrying so much. I am definitely getting more confident!” Another noted that “I’ve had more courageous conversations this year than ever before. Each one has helped increase my confidence and improve my judgment. I am much better at asking the right questions.” Collaborative inquiry impacts reflective practice. During the second administrators’ meeting (November 2012), the superintendent commented to sixty-one school leaders that “We

31656_Clausen-black.indd 221

20-06-11 13:19

222

Pamela Adams

should all be reflective practitioners.” In all subsequent site visits over the next three years, school leaders were encouraged to reflect on what they had learned from the strategies implemented since the last visit. In effect, the expectation of reflective practice was made explicit by the superintendent and was implicitly embedded in the process. It is not surprising, then, that enhanced reflective practice was seen to occupy a place of prominence in the data. Fourteen respondents (56 per cent) identified an increase in reflective practice resulting from the project. One perceived that “I have always seen myself informally as a reflective practitioner. My involvement in the project has made me find time to focus my reflections on my instructional leadership, making the process more structured and more disciplined.” Another experienced principal commented that “The collaborative nature of those monthly conversations with [the external team] helped me become more trusting. I don’t know of any other model that promotes reflection so well. It has truly become a springboard for me to keep engaging in my own research.” Another explained that “This process was authentic professional learning. I never felt as if I was trying to invent something to do for my own pd. My questions provided the stimulus for a great deal of reflection, and I was able to really probe and research. I loved it!” discussion: enabling structures and essential processes

A majority of experienced school leaders reported that their participation in this collaborative inquiry leadership project was the most effective professional learning they had experienced in their careers. What made it so? One explanation might be that the process itself was based on characteristics similar to those of other collaborative inquiry studies (see, as one example, Nelson et al. 2008): increased levels of participant involvement, engagement, and empowerment (Dimmock 2016); sustained and collaborative focus on seeking answers to relevant and site-embedded inquiry questions (Adams 2011); attention to building group norms of trust and sharing (Hands, Guzar, and Rodrique 2015); and time, space, and place for professional reflection (York-Barr et al. 2006). Another explanation may be that principles of adult learning (Brookfield 1986; Knowles 1980) were infused into the collaborative inquiry–based learning of school and system leaders: challenging,

31656_Clausen-black.indd 222

20-06-11 13:19



Leadership Development through Action Research 223

flexible, and personal, with a pronounced emphasis on pragmatic concerns and practical applications. The primary learning strategy was problem-solving; the learning “curriculum” was fundamentally constructivist. Animating Professional Learning: A Vignette The four-member leadership team of a large high school spent several meetings during the summer talking about feelings of stagnation and disengagement expressed by some teachers on the feedback form for June’s end-of-year professional development day. Of the leadership team, principal Jacquie was the most recent addition and had called the July meetings to brainstorm how they should respond to this input. Jacquie had transferred into the district the previous year as an upand-coming star, owing in part to her reputation in the community as someone who was involved with many local sports organizations, exerted a broad circle of influence, and had a gregarious way of building relationships with students. Jacquie’s team included the athletic director, Mike, the technology support specialist, Lavern, and the international exchange coordinator, Taylor. Of them, Mike had been a staff member at the school for the longest: more than eighteen years. He dismissed the staff comments, “since it was the end of the year and on most p d days they just want to get out of here.” Jacquie wasn’t fully convinced, since her superintendent had recently described the school as “dormant,” one in which the staff had once been energetic, collaborative, and curious but now were “a little long in the tooth.” After listening carefully to her team’s varying perspectives on the degree to which staff sentiments should be acted upon, Jacquie asked many questions about the professional development plan for the upcoming year. In her previous school district, the superintendent had expected all staff members to have a professional growth plan that guided individual and collective professional learning activities throughout the year. As a principal in that district, Jacquie had been expected to discuss with each staff member their monthly progress toward teaching goals and their reflections about an answer to their professional inquiry question. Furthermore, Jacquie was accustomed to a learning environment in which staff members collaborated on goals and professional learning days and staff meetings included discussions around teachers’ reflections, learning, and insights about their evolving effective practice.

31656_Clausen-black.indd 223

20-06-11 13:19

224

Pamela Adams

Jacquie decided to propose the idea of classroom visits as a way her team might help to support teacher morale and assess how they could better support teachers’ instructional growth by aligning professional development days with teachers’ needs. She distributed a calendar of each of their teaching responsibilities and other “written in stone” tasks and was pleasantly surprised when Taylor offered to make a monthly schedule that would allow them to each visit fifteen classrooms. Lavern was visibly concerned about this plan and noted that “sometimes things come up in the office that I just have to attend to, so I may not always be able to follow the schedule exactly.” Similarly, Mike voiced his apprehension about observing classrooms that were not in his specialization and complained that he would have to “spend the rest of the summer reading over a whole bunch of new curriculum.” Nonetheless, the meetings had given Jacquie some clear direction for the upcoming year, one that would use professional growth plans as working documents, that would establish collaborative teams to set and achieve goals, that would implement a consistent non-­ evaluative strategy of classrooms visits to add a degree of accountability and supportive presence, and that would begin to rebuild the mutual respect and trust that had characterized the staff in the past. Professional Growth Plans The project began with district commitment to the use of inquirybased Professional Growth Plans as the primary working document to support leadership growth. It remained so for the duration of the project. Every system and school leader had a growth plan that was shared at monthly district administrator meetings and that played an important role in every school visit. Many leaders became as attached to their growth plans as they were to their daily agendas. The Professional Growth Plans carried added significance. It was through their use that all educational leaders experienced the process of identifying a goal, creating a guiding question, developing strategies, and articulating measures and evidence through the model of collaborative inquiry. The Power of Teams Developing high-functioning leadership teams proved to be an essential structure of this project. A valuable finding was that the effectiveness of the central office leadership team had a noticeable impact on

31656_Clausen-black.indd 224

20-06-11 13:19



Leadership Development through Action Research 225

the effectiveness of school-based teams. Effective district teams encouraged greater effectiveness in school leadership teams through modelling. In turn, effective school leadership teams fostered creation of more effective teams of teachers and support staff who had direct impact in classrooms. In this way, district teams were better able to convey to school teams their expectations of effective collaboration, not through telling but, rather, through showing. Modelling during School Visits Over the course of the project, requests to extend the length and the focus of external team visits increased each year. All respondents spoke about the value they placed on these visits. What about site visits was attractive to school leaders? The visits from central office teams offered much in the way of conveying that this work in schools was valued and important to the extent that an attentive atmosphere of listening and presentism (Albright, Clement, and Holmes 2012) was being modelled. The power of modelling to influence educator behaviour started with the superintendent, whose willingness to take risks and show vulnerability in support of project goals was demonstrated in the first days and weeks of the project and continued over three years. Questioning skills and goal-setting were identified by school leaders as some of the more important skills that they observed being modelled. Others included listening skills, communication skills, and observation skills that could not necessarily be transferred through email or a phone call. Beyond an acquisition of skills, the impact of modelling emerged as one of the primary unanticipated outcomes of the project. summary

Data supports the claim that the collaborative inquiry process contributed to refinements of school and system leadership practices that could be categorized as transformational (Bass 1990; Michaelis, Stegmaier, and Sonntag 2010). From increased levels of trust and respect to enhanced functionality of teams, from redefining system leaders’ roles and responsibilities to purposeful capacity-building among school leaders and from the adoption of a model of collaborative inquiry to a clearer focus on the needs of each teacher, the project provided practical examples of what transformational leadership might look like. The cultural change throughout the district could also

31656_Clausen-black.indd 225

20-06-11 13:19

226

Pamela Adams

be described as transformational. Specifically, the content and quality of the professional discourse influenced system and school leaders’ understanding of and commitment to their professional practice; it brought deeper trust and respect to relationships between and among central services staff and school leaders; it contributed to greater clarity of communication and purpose across the district; and it heightened the collective sense of efficacy among most educational leaders. The collaborative inquiry model applied to this Instructional Leadership Development project offered system and school leaders the opportunity to engage in goal-setting, professional learning, collaboration, and goal-achievement, while also developing essential leadership skills and contributing to the leadership of learning in schools. It created greater horizontality and distribution in the school district as an organization, thereby promoting an ethos of shared responsibility. In this regard, various forms of distributed leadership (Elmore 1997; Spillane, Halverson, and Diamond 2001) emerged. Just as the modelling of team behaviour by system leaders may have contributed to enhanced effectiveness of school leadership teams, more teams of teachers were willing and able to follow the example of their leaders and form themselves into more effective teams. It seems likely that the quality of school leadership was directly influenced by the quality of district leadership and that, in turn, the expansion of highly effective distributed leadership in schools was dependent, in large part, on the quality of the more formal school leadership. This study produced evidence that a majority of system and school leaders who participated in a collaborative inquiry approach to leadership development became more competent, more confident, and more fully engaged in their instructional leadership roles. Most leaders who were interviewed or who participated through written responses maintained that they had acquired new skills in instructional leadership and had become more helpful to more teachers on their staffs. Individually and collectively, they reported feeling more able to lead the learning in their schools, while district leaders reported being able to sustain a tenacious commitment to leadership growth. conclusion

Is there a future for action research in Canada? What forms will it take, and how might these forms differ from the time-honoured models posited by Lewin (1946), Whyte (1943), Revans in 1959 (1980; 1982), and other early thinkers in the area?

31656_Clausen-black.indd 226

20-06-11 13:19



Leadership Development through Action Research 227

The case presented in this chapter offers compelling support for a continued and important role of action research (and its younger sibling, collaborative inquiry) in education. Expectations for teachers and leaders to engage in evidence-based decision-making have contributed to an educational culture in Canada in which reciprocity between research-based practice and practice-based research is increasingly seen as valuable. Arguably, there have been few times in educational history in Canada with greater need – and opportunity – to mobilize the rich practices and findings of educational action research across geography and context. Furthermore, the nature of action research and its place in the broader landscape of social science research appears to be shifting as it is taken up in differing forms in increasingly divergent environments. Indeed, Kurt Lewin’s conceptualization of action research appears to be relevant today: that it could be adopted as an appropriate method of inquiry by a variety of professions to explore social phenomena with the goal of taking informed action. Yet misinformed approaches to action research abound, and with today’s potential for unprecedented democratization, mobilization, and misinterpretation of knowledge, caution must be taken to uphold standards of rigour and fidelity to an accepted process. For example, some studies that claim an action research methodology have adapted fundamental processes beyond recognition. Some initiatives or programs are coined action research after the fact. Sometimes “doing a project” is equated with conducting action research. These and similar practices may sully an already contested history of credibility and de-intellectualization associated with action research, thereby validating the misperception that the methodology does not meet the scientific markers necessary to make useful and necessary contributions to a variety of disciplines. However, conducted with intentionality and informed by a thoughtful choice of purposes and processes, action research continues to offer enormous possibilities and opportunities for examining and explaining important phenomena in wide-ranging disciplines in ways not afforded by other approaches.

notes

  1 All names used in this chapter are pseudonyms, although the vignettes presented are accurate representations of actual events that occurred during this study in this school district.

31656_Clausen-black.indd 227

20-06-11 13:19

228

Pamela Adams

  2 The body of literature about action research as a methodology and ontology has grown exponentially in the past several decades. It is beyond the scope of this chapter to present a review of sufficient breadth and depth to identify all such literature. For a historical review of the development of action research, refer to McNiff (2013).   3 Hereafter referred to simply as “the project.”   4 This describes an abbreviated version of a process referred to as a generative dialogue. The details of this type of questioning, based on a Socratic process using Adlerian strategies, are beyond the scope of this chapter.   5 Thematic analysis employed Neuman’s (1997) four-step coding protocol.   6 This confidence was defined by effectiveness in nine elements of a School Leader Competency Standard: modelling professional learning; fostering effective relationships; embodying visionary leadership; leading a learning community; providing instructional leadership; supporting the application of fn m i knowledge; developing leadership capacity; maintaining school operations; and responding to the larger societal context (Alberta Education 2009). references

Adams, Pamela. 2011. “Cyclicity and Sustainability: The Role of Collaborative Action Inquiry in ai s i .” Alberta School Improvement Journal 1(1). https://www.uleth.ca/sites/default/files/AISI%20V1%20 1%202%20Fall%202011.pdf. Alberta Education. 2009. The Principal Quality Practice Guideline: Promoting Successful School Leadership in Alberta. Edmonton, a b : Alberta Education. https://www.teachers.ab.ca/SiteCollection Documents/ATA/For-Members/Professional%20Development/ Professional%20Growth%20Plans/principal-quality-­practice-guidelineenglish-12feb09.pdf. Albright, James, Jennifer Clement, and Kathryn Holmes. 2012. “School Change and the Challenge of Presentism.” Leading and Managing 18(1), 78–90. Altrichter, Herbert, Allan Feldman, Peter Posch, and Bridget Somekh. 2008. Teachers Investigate Their Work: An Introduction to Action Research across the Professions (2nd ed.). New York, ny: Routledge. Bass, Bernard M. 1990. Handbook of Leadership Theory, Research, and Managerial Applications (3rd ed.). New York, ny: Free Press.

31656_Clausen-black.indd 228

20-06-11 13:19



Leadership Development through Action Research 229

Berg, Bruce L. 2004. Qualitative Research Methods for Social Sciences. Toronto, on : Pearson. Brookfield, Stephen B. 1986. Understanding and Facilitating Adult Learning. San Francisco, ca: Jossey-Bass. Bruce, Susan M., and Gerald J. Pine. 2010. Action Research in Special Education: An Inquiry Approach for Effective Teaching and Learning. New York, n y: Teachers College Press. Butler, Deborah L., and Leyton Schnellert. 2012. “Collaborative Inquiry in Teacher Professional Development.” Teaching and Teacher Education 28(8), 1206–20. Carr, Wilfred, and Stephen Kemmis. 1986. Becoming Critical: Education, Knowledge and Action Research. London, UK: Falmer. Carson, Terrance R., and Dennis J. Sumara, eds. 1997. Action Research as a Living Practice. New York, n y: Lang International. Costello, Patrick. 2011. Effective Action Research: Developing Reflective Thinking and Practice (2nd ed.). New York, ny: Continuum. DeLuca, Christopher, Jason Shulha, Ulemu Luhanga, Lyn M. Shulha, Theodore M. Christou, and Don A. Klinger. 2015. “Collaborative Inquiry as a Professional Learning Structure for Educators: A Scoping Review.” Professional Development in Education 4(4), 640–70. Dimmock, Clive. 2016. “Conceptualising the Research-PracticeProfessional Development Nexus: Mobilising Schools as ‘Research Engaged’ Professional Learning Communities. Professional Development in Education 42(1), 36–53. Donohoo, Jenni. 2013. Collaborative Inquiry for Educators: A Facilitator’s Guide to School Improvement. Thousand Oaks, c a : Corwin. Elmore, Richard F. 1997. Building a New Structure for School Leadership. Washington, dc: Shanker Institute. http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ ED546618.pdf. Emihovich, Catherine, and Catherine Battaglia. 2000. “Creating Cultures for Collaborative Inquiry: New Challenges for School Leaders.” International Journal of Leadership in Education 3(3), 225–38. Fullan, Michael. 2010. All Systems Go: The Change Imperative for Whole System Reform. Thousand Oaks, ca: Corwin. Gordon, Stephen P. 2008. Collaborative Action Research: Developing Professional Learning Communities. New York, ny: Teachers College Press. Greenwood, Davydd J., and Morton Levin. 2007. Introduction to Action Research: Social Research for Social Change (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, c a : Sage.

31656_Clausen-black.indd 229

20-06-11 13:19

230

Pamela Adams

Hallinger, Phillip, Ronald H. Heck, and J. Murphy. 2014. “Teacher Evaluation and School Improvement: An Analysis of the Evidence.” Educational Assessment, Evaluation and Accountability 26(1), 5–28. Hands, Catherine, Katlyn Guzar, and Anne Rodrigue. 2015. “The Art and Science of Leadership in Learning Environments: Facilitating a Professional Learning Community across Districts.” Paper presented at the annual conference of the Canadian Society for Studies in Education, Ottawa, on . Hendricks, Cher. 2009. Improving Schools through Action Research: A Comprehensive Guide for Educators (2nd ed.). Upper Saddle River, nj : Pearson. Knowles, Malcolm S. 1980. The Modern Practice of Adult Education: From Pedagogy to Andragogy. New York, ny: Cambridge University Press. Lewin, Kurt. 1946. “Action Research and Minority Problems.” Journal of Social Issues 2(4), 34–46. Loughran, John. 1996. Developing Reflective Practice: Learning about Teaching and Learning through Modeling. London, UK: Falmer. Louis, Karen Seashore. 2015. “Linking Leadership to Learning: State, District and Local Effects. Nordic Journal of Studies in Educational Policy 1.doi:10.3402/nstep.v1.30321. McNiff, Jean. 2013. Action Research: Principles and Practice. Toronto, o n: Routledge. McTaggart, Robin. 1994. “Participatory Action Research: Issues in Theory and Practice.” Educational Action Research 2(3), 313–37. doi:10.1080/ 0965079940020302. Mertler, Craig A. 2009. Action Research: Teachers as Researchers in the Classroom (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, c a : Sage. Michaelis, Björn, Ralf Stegmaier, and Karlheinz Sonntag. 2010. “Shedding Light on Followers’ Innovation Implementation Behavior.” Journal of Managerial Psychology 254, 408–29. doi:10.1108/02683941011 035304. Nelson, Tamara Holmlund, David Slavit, Mart Perkins, and Tom Hathorn. 2008. “A Culture of Collaborative Inquiry: Learning to Develop and Support Professional Learning Communities.” Teachers College Record 11 (6), 1269–303. Neuman, Lawrence. 2014. Social Research Methods: Qualitative and Quantitative Approaches. New York, ny: Allyn and Bacon. Revans, Reg W. 1980. Action Learning: New Techniques for Management. London, UK: Blond and Briggs.

31656_Clausen-black.indd 230

20-06-11 13:19



Leadership Development through Action Research 231

– 1982. Origins and Growth of Action Learning. Bromley, UK: Chartwell-Bratt. Riel, Margaret. 2016. Understanding Action Research. Malibu, c a : Pepperdine University, Centre for Collaborative Action Research. http:// cadres.pepperdine.edu/ccar/define.html. Sahlberg, Pasi. 2015. Finnish Lessons 2.0: What Can the World Learn from Educational Change in Finland? New York, ny: Teachers College Press. Samaras, Anastasia. P. 2011. Self-study Teacher Research: Improving your Practice through Collaborative Inquiry. Thousand Oaks, c a : Sage. Schmuck, Richard. 2006. Practical Action Research for Change. Thousand Oaks, ca: Corwin. Spaulding, Dean T., and John Falco. 2013. Action Research for School Leaders. New York, n y: Pearson Education. Spillane, James, Richard Halverson, and John B. Diamond. 2001. “Investigating School Leadership Practice: A Distributed Perspective.” Educational Researcher 30(3), 23–8. Stenhouse, Lawrence. 1975. An Introduction to Curriculum Research and Development. Portsmouth, UK: Heinemann. Stringer, R. 2007. Action Research (3rd ed.). London, UK: Sage. Timperley, Helen, Linda Kaser, and Judy Halbert. 2014. A Framework for Transforming Learning in Schools: Innovation and the Spiral of Inquiry. Melbourne, Australia: Centre for Strategic Education. Whyte, William. 1943. Street Corner Society. Chicago, il: University of Chicago. York-Barr, Jennifer, William A. Sommers, Gail S. Ghere, and Jo Montie. 2006. Reflective Practice to Improve Schools: An Action Guide for Educators (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, c a : Corwin Press (Sage). Zeichner, Kenneth M. 2003. “Teacher Research as Professional Development for P–12 Educators in the USA .” Educational Action Research 11(2), 301–26.

31656_Clausen-black.indd 231

20-06-11 13:19

13 Mathematics and Collaborative Action Research Findings and Considerations of Two Large-Scale Canadian Studies Cathy Bruce and Tara C. Flynn

Collaborative action research (c a r ) in educational contexts usually involves teachers and researchers working together to conduct research in areas of mutual interest. In mathematics education, car has been used as a framework to investigate a wide range of areas of interest, including content-specific pedagogical issues, with a particular interest in tackling mathematics concepts that are difficult to teach and difficult to learn. This chapter will describe Dr Bruce’s research over the past two decades working with teachers to explore some of the more difficult aspects of mathematics learning and will highlight benefits and challenges to collaborative action research. background and context

Research has clearly identified mathematics as the best predictor of overall school and career success (Claessens, Duncan, and Engel 2009; Duncan et al. 2007; Jordan and Levine 2009; Watts et al. 2014). Yet for North American educators, mathematics is often considered one of the more challenging areas of teaching. In spite of these challenges, Canada generally ranks well on international tests of mathematics: pisa 2012 results indicated that only nine of sixty-five countries outperformed Canada in mathematics, and in 2015 only Singapore, Hong Kong–China, Macao–China, Chinese Taipei, Japan, b s j g –China

31656_Clausen-black.indd 232

20-06-11 13:19



Mathematics and Collaborative Action Research 233

performed better than Canada, while Korea, Switzerland, Estonia, the Netherlands, Denmark, and Finland all performed statistically as well as Canada. Despite – or perhaps because of this – there is an ongoing focus on mathematics teaching among the Canadian public and in the education community in particular. The focus has manifested itself in positive efforts being made by teachers – with support from ministries of education, teacher education programs, school districts, and researchers – to continue to develop their content knowledge of mathematics for teaching and related practices. One particularly powerful and personalized form of teacher professional learning in mathematics has been the development of c a r projects that aim to build mathematics content understanding and increase efficacy in mathematics teaching. car is a shared process of learning whereby teachers work alongside researchers to study problems or challenges of mutual interest (Bruce, Flynn, and Stagg-Peterson 2011; Bruce et al. 2011; Capobianco 2007; Frankham and Howes 2006; Ross and Bruce 2012). In the case of mathematics education, the primary site of learning for these collaborative research groups is often the classroom, and the cycle(s) of action research often occur over a sustained period of months or even several years. In this chapter, we relate two cases of large and multi-year c a r projects in Ontario, Canada, that focused on mathematics teaching and learning. The first was a three-year program instituted by the Elementary Teachers’ Federation of Ontario and the second a five-year study of fractions teaching and learning, sponsored by the Ontario Ministry of Education. The large size of the projects afforded a relatively rare opportunity to collect quantitative, in addition to qualitative, data in the context of c a r . Although some criticism surrounds the use of quantitative assessment measures for action research because it is generally considered a qualitative research paradigm, we wanted to take advantage of the sheer number of educators engaging in action research simultaneously and with similar goals. In both studies, researchers from the Trent Mathematics Education Research Collaborative (www.tmerc.ca) worked directly with teams of teachers in their schools. In these c a r projects, the layers of learning were multifold: teachers learned from mathematics educators and researchers, while researchers learned from teachers. And through the process, students made positive gains in their mathematics understanding and engagement. But the process was also replete with challenges such as working in messy classroom contexts, finding ways to balance the

31656_Clausen-black.indd 233

20-06-11 13:19

234

Cathy Bruce and Tara C. Flynn

power relationships, aligning curriculum and research goals, and sharing ownership for the research activity and knowledge mobilization. the car process

To begin, it helps to describe the c a r process of these two projects. Essentially, c a r is similar to other forms of action research in terms of following a general cycle. In these projects, the process involved: i) identifying a problem; ii) exploring ideas and gathering baseline data; iii) continually finding and refining the research questions (see Hubbard and Power 2003); iv) developing a plan of action; v) implementing a plan of action and assessing/reflecting on that implementation; vi) collecting and analyzing data; vii) refining the actions based on observations and other data sources; viii) further data collection and analysis; and ix) overall analysis, reflection, and report development. Collaborative and respectful relationships were central to the integrity of the projects. Whitehead and McNiff (2006, 21) describe similar relationships in their own action research partnerships: “The relationship here was a democratic partnership, in which all participated in a dialogue of equals. The work of higher education personnel was also to study their practice, in collaboration with teachers who were studying theirs, so that all could learn and grow together.” This was the case in the three-year and the five-year studies reported in this chapter. That is, the teachers had insights into their classroom contexts, the students they were teaching, and related effective pedagogies, but they were less knowledgeable about action research processes such as data collection and analysis strategies. On the other hand, researchers had insights into mathematics research and research processes, including data collection and analysis, but lacked knowledge of specific classroom contexts and the particular needs and assets of the students in those classrooms. Essentially, researchers and teachers were both researching their own practices. a t h r e e - y e a r m at h e m at i c s c o l l a b o r at i v e action research project

The Elementary Teachers’ Federation of Ontario (e t f o ) secured funding for a three-year action research program in which teachers received release time from their classroom teaching on five days over the academic year to inquire into an area of mutual interest, with the

31656_Clausen-black.indd 234

20-06-11 13:19



Mathematics and Collaborative Action Research 235

support of university researchers. Most of the implementation of the actions occurred in the classroom between these meetings, and participants then reported back on their experiences at the team meetings. Each teacher team submitted a proposal with a problem statement and an outline for investigating the problem. This proposal process was competitive, and etfo selected the proposals that demonstrated a high level of commitment from the teacher team. The teacher teams were then paired with researchers, who were compensated for their consultation time and for a second layer of data collection on the action research process itself as well as reporting deliverables. The group met together on each occasion as a full team, and as a result, over time, the teachers and the researchers built relationships based on mutual trust and support (Bruce, Flynn, and Stagg-Peterson 2011). Over three years, the Trent Mathematics Education Research Collaborative worked with sixteen teams (approximately five teams per year). One of the challenges identified by participants was the amount of negotiation required to make decisions as a team. As one teacherresearcher explained in her questionnaire, “decisions were made by intense discussion of differing views and perspectives. We often would throw ideas out and reach a consensus by debating theories and ways of thinking. Sometimes this meant ‘convincing’ or educating team members to ensure we were all on the same page.” A second, related challenge was the amount of time required to commit to the project. Teacher-researchers often felt pressed for time – in terms of the between-meeting implementation goals and in terms of preparing for the five days of release time for meetings, both of which required time beyond their regular teaching commitments. Nonetheless, the teacherresearchers were deeply committed to, and energized by, their inquiry and reported experiencing significant shifts in their thinking and practice. In a final report from one team, for example, teacher-researchers stated that “an inquiry-based program has allowed us to quickly and clearly see what the instructional implications and needs are for each student. Through this process, the teachers felt we were more accurate in identifying and understanding where struggling students were having difficulties. It has also allowed us to give specific, targeted, and timely feedback to each student, focusing on strengths and next steps.” One of the important affordances of c a r for the teams was an increase in teacher-researcher confidence to engage students in mathtalk and exploration of mathematics ideas. As one teacher noted in a

31656_Clausen-black.indd 235

20-06-11 13:19

236

Cathy Bruce and Tara C. Flynn

focus group interview: “I have changed my way of looking at teaching math, from me being a presenter at the front to beginning to teach as a math community where everyone shares the teaching … I am teaching the child as a math learner instead of covering individual curriculum expectations. I am concentrating on the higher order thinking skills and math processes and building a math community.” In a similar vein, researchers were curious to learn more about whether engagement in action research led to changes in teacher efficacy – the teacher’s belief that (s)he has the ability to help students learn. Teachers with high levels of efficacy, or belief in their teaching abilities, set high goals for themselves as teachers and have high expectations for their students (Tschannen-Moran and Woolfolk Hoy 2001). High-efficacy teachers also persist when faced with challenges and take risks in the classroom with greater emphasis on sharing control of the learning with their students (Ross 1992). Classrooms with teachers who have high efficacy produce higher student achievement than teachers with low teacher efficacy (Ross 1998; Ross and Bruce 2012). To assess the effects of action research on teacher efficacy in this three-year study, we used a research-validated survey tool that measured three dimensions of teacher efficacy: teacher efficacy for student engagement, for developing instructional strategies, and for classroom management (Tschannen-Moran and Woolfolk Hoy 2001). Of the 185 teachers surveyed before and after the project, we found that c a r made a statistically significant contribution to all three of these dimensions of teacher efficacy. This was true for both genders, across career stages, and for various levels of teacher qualifications (Ross and Bruce 2012). Importantly, participation in car led to positive growth in teacher-researcher beliefs about their ability to engage students in high-quality mathematics activities in the classroom. As an indicator of teacher-researcher ownership over the learning and the car process, car teams were eager to share their findings in local presentations and provincial conferences (Ross and Bruce 2012), including providing workshops for other educators at the Ontario Association of Mathematics Educators annual conference. A host of publications emerged from the project, including a research monograph entitled Teachers Learning Together: Lessons from Collaborative Action Research in Practice, published by the Elementary Teachers’ Federation of Ontario (e t f o 2013), with research partners as ­contributing authors. Most recently, e t f o published a practical

31656_Clausen-black.indd 236

20-06-11 13:19



Mathematics and Collaborative Action Research 237

handbook for teachers on action research entitled Learning through Teacher Research: A Guidebook for Your Action Research Journey, based on the experiences and findings of the large-scale three-year car project, with contributions by several researchers involved in the project (Flynn et al. 2016). a f i v e - y e a r c o l l a b o r at i v e a c t i o n r e s e a r c h project on teaching and learning fractions

Currently, in a more content-specific mathematics project, teacher teams have been working with researchers to examine fractions teaching and learning using c a r as the framework for the learning. In partnership with the Ontario Ministry of Education and several district school boards, the Trent Math Education Research Collaborative has been conducting action research on fractions teaching and learning since 2011. A total of eight Ontario school boards, seventy-five classroom teachers, and 1,875 students spanning Grades 3 to 10 have been involved in the research to date. The focus on fractions was selected explicitly because this is an area of chronic challenge in North America and, indeed, in Canada. Fractions have long been recognized as difficult to learn and to teach. Research clearly indicates that students struggle with fractions understanding in primary grades (Empson and Levi 2011; Moss and Case 1999) through the junior years (Armstrong and Larson 1995; Kamii and Clark 1995), and this struggle persists through secondary and post-secondary education (Orpwood et al. 2011). The lack of understanding of fraction concepts hampers further mathematical development (Behr et al. 1993), and the effects of fractions misconceptions are far-reaching because fractions concepts are underpinned by larger mathematical processes, including proportional reasoning (Moss and Case 1999) and spatial reasoning (Mamolo, Sinclair, and Whitely 2011), and fractions in turn underpin many areas of mathematics, including probability (Clarke and Roche 2009) and algebraic reasoning (Brown and Quinn 2007; Empson and Levi 2011). Serious concerns about equity lie at the heart of our interest in fractions teaching and learning; access to mathematics for all students is an equity issue in and of itself (see the 2014 n ct m position paper, “Access and Equity in mathematics education”). Further, jobs involving mathematics dominate the lists of top-paying careers (University of Waterloo 2016), and those who cannot access higher mathematics

31656_Clausen-black.indd 237

20-06-11 13:19

238

Cathy Bruce and Tara C. Flynn

will not be able to access these opportunities. In very practical terms, then, if students are cut off from later mathematics based on their lack of fundamental fractions understanding, their future career and financial prospects will be limited. In our car project, teachers and researchers had a common interest in improving the quality of student understanding of fractions ideas, with a focus on generating and trying out novel and engaging fractions tasks that clearly linked to foundational fractions concepts. Each year, two to three teams of teachers and researchers spent time planning, implementing, and debriefing tasks associated with specific learning goals based on needs identified in the existing research, combined with teacher and researcher observations and experiences on fractions. For more information on the car process, please see Bruce, Flynn, and McPherson (2009). Researchers and teachers met between five to seven days over the course of a year for focused discussions about fractions teaching and learning and to work with students directly in classrooms. One method for assessing the effects of teacher-researcher collaboration on student understanding (beyond the close observations conducted on an ongoing basis) was through prepared pre- and post-test student assessments that mapped to fractions learning goals. Two years of data (2013–15) are summarized here as a snapshot of students gains. In 2013–14, the final pre-post matched sample consisted of 387 students (M = 203, F = 184). The majority of students (260 students, or approximately 67 per cent of the sample) scored 50 per cent or below when completing the pre-test. However, post-test analysis showed that the intervention reversed these results – 71 per cent of the students (278 out of 387) scored above 50 per cent when completing the fractions test after teacher professional learning through car. This is a broad indicator that the collaborative work of the teachers had a substantial impact on student learning of fractions. Similar results were found for 2014–15. In addition to gathering student achievement data, participating teachers were asked to describe their experiences in the car project through voluntary interviews and questionnaires. The questionnaire was designed based on areas of interest and informal feedback from the teacher-researcher participants. Fifty-four participants completed the questionnaire. When asked whether the professional learning process supported their fractions teaching, all participants either agreed (20 per cent) or strongly agreed (80 per cent). When asked whether

31656_Clausen-black.indd 238

20-06-11 13:19



Mathematics and Collaborative Action Research 239

the project supported students in their fractions understanding, a total of 72 per cent of respondents strongly agreed, 26 per cent agreed, and 2 per cent responded neutrally (neither agreed nor disagreed). Teacherresearchers also acknowledged key learnings, including increased precision in pedagogical practices and content knowledge (e.g., recognizing the importance of the unit fraction as a powerful building block and increased confidence in the ability to identify and respond to specific student needs related to the content). Teachers also commented on the power of using fractions tasks and other information from a researcher-designed online resource on fractions, which featured the work of teachers and students (see Bruce, Flynn, and Yearley’s digital resource, “Fractions Learning Pathways,” which is an interactive resource featuring findings from the study, available at http://www. fractionslearningpathways.ca). Participants also rated the most valued aspects of the car project. The top-ranked activities included: 1 co-planning fractions lessons; 2 implementing co-planned fractions tasks; 3 observing students doing mathematics; and 4 marking and analyzing student responses to the pre- and post-test questions. Teacher-researchers also identified the most challenging aspects of participating in the fractions c a r project. In each year, the overwhelmingly dominant concern of teachers was time, particularly a lack of time to i) implement the tasks, ii) analyze student thinking, and iii) restructure their math programs so that students could revisit fractions on multiple occasions over the year instead of teaching fractions as an isolated unit. Some also mentioned the challenges of being out of the classroom for the days of c a r meetings in order to be involved in the project. Most important, teachers and researchers collaborated to develop new knowledge in the form of a practical fractions learning pathway that identifies core concepts required for deep understanding of fractions and a general sequencing of how these concepts build on one another over time. Student work samples, observations of students, and extensive reviews of fractions research all supported the development of this pathway.

31656_Clausen-black.indd 239

20-06-11 13:19

240

Cathy Bruce and Tara C. Flynn

the challenges of sharing ownership of the action research process

One of the greatest challenges identified by researchers of car specifically (compared to some other forms of action research) relates to issues of ownership, influence, and knowledge-sharing. We believe that it is important to acknowledge that researchers are often the initiators of c a r and that we must actively work against controlling the action research process, even though we may have more knowledge about the process than the teacher-researchers we are working with. We are constantly cautioning ourselves to not over-influence teacher teams by making decisions or setting goals for the team. And although time-consuming, this must be done in collaboration – because it is through this collaboration that we learn from one another. More than a decade ago, Frankham and Howes (2006) reported on the negative effects of an action research project that was clearly dominated by “outsiders.” In their report, we learn that the principal of the school was eager to direct the action research process and that the team of teachers was not given the opportunity to participate in the selection of the topic of the inquiry. The action research topic was redefined by the researchers involved in the c a r project, further reducing the shared ownership and resulting in teacher resistance toward the ­project, the researchers, and the data collection process, including an imposed survey of parents. In an era of positivist school “reform” currently taking hold for our cousins in the United States, the dangers of labelling a professional development project as “action research” are palpable. As Feldman (2017) cautions in his history of action research, we must watch that technical problem-solving does not overshadow issues of social justice and equity. That is, shared ownership of the action research process, including collaboratively determining the problems of practice and sharing decisions about what actions we might want to implement and explore in order to alleviate the problem, as well as joint observation and data collection and analysis, can act in and of themselves as forms of social justice in which teacher work is valued, respected, and at the centre of learning about teaching and learning. All parties must remember that car is a process of joint action to focus on issues that matter to the whole team. As researchers, we must constantly work to ensure that the concerns and goals of the teacher-researchers are at

31656_Clausen-black.indd 240

20-06-11 13:19



Mathematics and Collaborative Action Research 241

the forefront of the work and to remind ourselves that action research aims to empower teachers through localized knowledge creation. The following research experience, first reported in Bruce, Flynn, and Stagg-Peterson (2011, 448), highlights the importance of this: “One thing that we learned as university researchers collaborating with teacher researchers was the importance of listening carefully and being equally open to the ideas and concerns of the teacher researchers, whether our biases aligned with the interests of the teacher researchers or not. For example, when a teacher researcher team wanted to investigate strategies for increasing the engagement of students in mathematics classes, university researchers were tempted to dismiss this as already well researched and unnecessary, when in fact the opportunity for knowledge creation among teacher researchers about the role of engagement in learning mathematics was rich and the opportunity for shifts in practice was high.” From the perspective of one teacher-researcher team report written by teacher participants in our study, we can see the impact of shared ownership on the experience of teacher-researchers and on the outcomes of the process: “One element of [our project] that has been repeatedly talked about amongst team members is the element of teacher choice. This project has allowed us to take ownership over our own learning and professionalism. Because of this, all members of the team were vested in its success. The cross-divisional aspect of our team was a huge window for further learning, as teachers who normally wouldn’t work professionally on a shared task were able to begin to consider teaching and learning from a variety of vantage points. The framework allows for sustained engagement in professional growth, as it is an ongoing cycle, not a one-shot deal. We worked together on several occasions, each time bringing food for thought … and leaving with a sense of collaborative success.” c o n s i d e r at i o n s f o r s u c c e s s f u l c a r p r o j e c t s

The nature of c a r is complex, involving teamwork, negotiation, and shared exploration. Based on our experiences in mathematics education over several c a r projects and working with many teams of educators, we have been able to identify three particular considerations needed to support productive learning, namely: manageability, goal alignment, and passion.

31656_Clausen-black.indd 241

20-06-11 13:19

242

Cathy Bruce and Tara C. Flynn

1 Manageability c a r projects can quickly become large in scope and overly ambitious, leading to frustration and a lack of focus. Rather than over-­ committing, we try to be realistic about what is possible, given the team members’ responsibilities and the timelines for the project. For example, in terms of data collection and analysis, rather than assessing all students in every classroom that is part of the action research project, we often consider observing a selection of specific students and their responses to tasks or ideas. We sometimes call them our “students of interest” because we find them intriguing or perplexing, specifically related to the problem we are exploring. It is often in the specificity of the topic and the ways we go about our data collection and analysis that we gain insights about our problem. We have consistently found that the selection of a sub-sample of students can be as illuminating as a whole class set of data because it allows a fine-grained analysis of student responses. By allowing close attention to the thinking and responses of a few students, teachers and researchers can gain a depth of insights into the range of learners in their classrooms while simultaneously keeping the scope of data collection and analysis manageable. 2 Goal alignment When we bring a group of people together who typically do not interact as part of their daily work to engage in car, there tends to be a range of competing or fragmented areas of interest. To further complicate matters, teachers work in an environment that is often subject to district initiatives or mandates, which are often reflective of wider political agendas, trends, and/or real or perceived needs. While we continue to emphasize and value the importance of teacher choice and shared ownership over the project, starting with the setting of goals and development of the research problem and associated questions, it may help to frame these research questions within the broader context of province or district directions, where possible. When this alignment of local and larger goals is in place, it allows the c a r endeavour to reduce the burden of competing demands on teachers and feeds into knowledge-creation related to the larger system goals. For example, if the district has a mandate to focus on mathematics (which is certainly the case at this moment in Ontario), a research

31656_Clausen-black.indd 242

20-06-11 13:19



Mathematics and Collaborative Action Research 243

partner can help to facilitate the team in surfacing problems of practice within this very broad area, to find those burning questions that are relevant to daily practice of high interest to team members, and to lend strength to sound district initiatives and contribute to wider system conversations. 3 Passion Team members who have passion for exploring a group-selected problem will be more likely to commit to the project. We have learned to move slowly at the outset of c a r work and to listen carefully. It has been worth the time at the beginning of an action research cycle to find a shared and interesting problem, and related research question, that members of the team care about personally and professionally. In this context, participants will experience genuine curiosity about the topic along with a sincere interest in seeking answers. We suggest keeping detailed notes from this stage of problem-finding and dialogue that the team can revisit at times when the research process feels “bumpy” or “off-track,” as it often will. t h e f u t u r e o f c o l l a b o r at i v e a c t i o n r e s e a r c h

c a r is an effective model for localized knowledge creation, professional learning, and increased teacher efficacy. We have seen in our work that the opportunity to engage in car can be transformative for teachers. Teachers who participate in car come to see themselves as researchers and learn through experience that problems of practice can be identified and addressed through systematic, research-based means. Educational institutions (ministries of education and local school boards) have begun to see the benefits of supporting teachers in collaborative action research and now actively support models for teacher inquiry. As the interest in c a r continues to grow and the impacts and benefits become more widely known, we also see a growing interest beyond the classroom, with consultants, coaches, and administrators also engaging in c a r to investigate and address their own particular problems of practice. Our collective understanding of what works in teacher learning has come a long way from the one-off workshop model for “in-service” education, with school board professional development plans increasingly favouring a more sustained approach to content learning. Through decades of research on action

31656_Clausen-black.indd 243

20-06-11 13:19

244

Cathy Bruce and Tara C. Flynn

research, this shift recognizes the crucial importance of teacher agency, teacher inquiry, and opportunities for deep teacher learning. The support for teacher inquiry in Canada is trending upward and is accompanied by new resources and structures. In recent years, we have noted a number of initiatives that provide funding to teams of teacher-researchers through an application process. In Ontario, for example, the Teacher Learning and Leadership Program (t l l p ) has been funded by the Ontario Ministry of Education; individuals or groups of experienced teachers can apply for funds to support a project of their own design for professional learning. Applicants are encouraged to submit proposals for action research and to describe how the project is teacher-led (see Ontario Ministry of Education 2016). Initiatives of this nature support another shift: an expanded notion of the role of the researcher (from the external expert to that of colleague and collaborator) and the role of the teacher in action research (from a participant to a leader and expert in their own right). With initiatives such as the t l l p in place, we expect to see this trend of increased agency and infrastructure continuing such that teachers increasingly lead the way in collaborative action research. Considering how prevalent support for teacher inquiry and collaborative action research has become in the Canadian context over the past thirty years, we do not believe this is an unrealistic prediction. And we further this prediction by anticipating that the nature of knowledge-creation and knowledge-mobilization will continue to be locally developed while simultaneously benefitting from globalized information-sharing through the Internet. This includes growth in crowd-sourced funding for teacher-directed action research projects, such as through the Social Publishers Foundation. We continue to interrogate issues of teacher time, researcher collaboration, and knowledge-sharing platforms: beyond the collaborative learning of action research teams, how are findings from c a r projects being shared more widely, if at all, so that networks of teachers can readily access this knowledge, engage with other researchers, and build from what others have learned? This will always be an issue in teacher research, given teachers’ time constraints and the demands of the classroom. However, there is promise in online platforms such as the Canadian Journal of Action Research, social funding projects, and TeachOntario – a website that publishes the work from tllp teams. As researchers, we hope that this interest in teacher inquiry continues to grow in the direction of c a r ’s more precise and focused

31656_Clausen-black.indd 244

20-06-11 13:19



Mathematics and Collaborative Action Research 245

approach to data collection and analysis and that school boards and teacher-researcher groups continue to seek partnerships with university researchers who can provide guidance on educational research matters, while leveraging teacher expertise on students, their needs, and the classroom environment. final thoughts

High-quality, thoughtful, and purposeful teaching is not a given – it is hard work. The same can be said for educational research. Given the steady interest in mathematics education in Canada for well over two decades, we anticipate the continued value of teacher-researcher partnerships and research on teaching and learning mathematics. car is a powerful tool for teacher-researcher learning that leads to clear and identifiable shifts in teacher practice and efficacy and ultimately leads to benefits for student learning. For researchers, car offers deep insights into processes of action research but also into the contexts and learning processes of students. Although it has its logistical and relationship challenges, car is incredibly rewarding for participants, with the important ultimate result being positive teacher agency and meaningful collective knowledge-creation.

references

Armstrong, Barbara E., and Carol Novillis Larson. 1995. “Students Use of Part-Whole and Direct Comparison Strategies for Comparing Partitioned Rectangles.” Journal for Research in Mathematics Education 26(1), 2–19. doi:10.2307/749225. Behr, Merlyn, Guerson Harel, Thomas Post, and Richard Lesh. 1993. “Rational Numbers: Toward a Semantic Analysis-Emphasis on the Operator Construct.” In T.P. Carpenter, E. Fennema, and T.A. Romberg, Rational Numbers: An Integration of Research, edited by 13–47. Hillsdale, n j: Erlbaum. Brown, George, and Robert J. Quinn. 2007. “Investigating the Relationship between Fraction Proficiency and Success in Algebra.” Australian Mathematics Teacher 63(4), 8–15. Bruce, Cathy, Tara Flynn, and Richard McPherson. 2009. “Collaborative Action Research.” Trent Math Education Research Collaborative digital paper. http://www.tmerc.ca/digitalpapers/car.html#collaboration.

31656_Clausen-black.indd 245

20-06-11 13:19

246

Cathy Bruce and Tara C. Flynn

Bruce, Cathy, Tara Flynn, and Shelley Stagg-Peterson. 2011. “Examining What We Mean by Collaboration in Collaborative Action Research: A Cross-Case Analysis.” Educational Action Research 19(4), 433–52. Bruce, Cathy, Daniel Jarvis, Tara Flynn, and Erim Brock. 2011. “Lead Teachers in Collaborative Action Research: Perceptions of Role and Responsibility.” Canadian Journal of Action Research 12(3), 29–46. http://cjar.nipissingu.ca/index.php/cjar/article/view/21. Capobianco, Brenda. 2007. “Science Teachers’ Attempts at Integrating Feminist Pedagogy through Collaborative Action Research.” Journal of Research in Science Teaching 44(1), 1–32. Claessens, Amy, Greg Duncan, and Mimi Engel. 2009. “Kindergarten Skills and Fifth-Grade Achievement: Evidence from the ec ls-k .” Economics of Education Review 28, 415–27. Clarke, Doug, and Anne Roche. 2009. “Students’ Fraction Comparison Strategies as a Window into Robust Understanding and Possible Pointers for Instruction.” Educational Studies in Mathematics 72, 127–38. Duncan, Greg, Chantelle J. Dowsett, Amy Claessens, Katherine Magnuson, Aletha C. Huston, Pamela Klebanov, et al. 2007. “School Readiness and Later Achievement.” Developmental Psychology 43, 1428–46. Empson, Susan, and Linda Levi. 2011. Extending Children’s Mathematics: Fractions and Decimals. Portsmouth, n h : Heinemann. e t f o ( Elementary Teachers’ Federation of Ontario). 2013. Teachers Learning Together: Lessons from Collaborative Action Research in Practice. Toronto, on : Elementary Teachers’ Federation of Ontario. Feldman, Alan. 2017. “An Emergent History of Educational Action Research in the English-Speaking World.” In The Palgrave International Handbook on Action Research, edited Lonnie Rowell, Catherine D. Bruce, Joseph Shosh, and Margaret Riel, by 125–45. Palgrave Macmillan US. doi:10.1057/978-1-137-40523-4. Flynn, Tara, Ron Wideman, Shelley Stagg-Peterson, Cathy Bruce, Sheila Windle, Jane Bennett, et al. 2016. Learning through Teacher Research: A Guidebook for your Action Research Journey. Toronto, on: Elementary Teachers’ Federation of Ontario. Frankham, Jo, and Andy Howes. 2006. “Talk as Action in Collaborative Action Research: Making and Taking apart Teacher/Researcher Relationships.” British Educational Research Journal 32(4), 617–32. Hubbard, Ruth S., and Brenda M. Power. 2003. The Art of Classroom Inquiry: A Handbook for Teacher-Researchers. London, UK: Heinemann.

31656_Clausen-black.indd 246

20-06-11 13:19



Mathematics and Collaborative Action Research 247

Jordan, Nancy, and Susan Levine. 2009. “Socioeconomic Variation, Number Competence, and Mathematics Learning Difficulties in Young Children.” Developmental Disabilities Research Reviews 15, 60–8. Kamii, Constance, and Faye B. Clark. 1995. “Equivalent Fractions: Their Difficulty and Educational Implications.” Journal of Mathematical Behaviour 14(4), 365–78. Mamolo, Amy, Nathalie Sinclair, and Walter Whiteley. 2011. “Proportional Reasoning with a Pyramid.” Mathematics Teaching in the Middle School 16(9), 544–9. Moss, Joan, and Robbie Case. 1999. “Developing Children’s Understanding of the Rational Numbers: A New Model and an Experimental Curriculum.” Journal for Research in Mathematics Education 30(2), 122–47. nc t m (National Council of Teachers of Mathematics). 2014. “Position Paper: Access and Equity in Mathematics Education.” http://www.nctm. org/Standards-and-Positions/Position-Statements/Access-and-Equityin-Mathematics-Education. Ontario Ministry of Education. 2016. “2018–19 Teacher Learning and Leadership Program.” Last modified 30 September 2016. http://www. edu.gov.on.ca/eng/teacher/tllp.html. Orpwood, Graham, Laurel Schollen, Gillian Leek, Pina MarinelliHenriques, and Hassan Assiri. 2012. College Mathematics Project 2011: Final Report. http://collegemathproject.senecac.on.ca/cmp/en/pdf/ FinalReport/2011/ CMP_2011_Final_Report%20-%2002Apr12%20 pmh.pdf. Ross, John. 1992. “Teacher Efficacy and the Effect of Coaching on Student Achievement.” Canadian Journal of Education 17(1), 51–65. – 1998. “The Antecedents and Consequences of Teacher Efficacy.” In Research on Teaching, Vol. 7, edited by J. Brophy, 49-74. Greenwich, c t : ja i Press. Ross, John, and Cathy Bruce. 2012. “Quantitative Inquiry into Collaborative Action Research: Measuring Teacher Benefits.” Teacher Development 16(4), 537–61. Social Publishers Foundation. 2020. https://www.socialpublishers​ ­foundation.org/. Tschannen-Moran, Megan, and Anita Woolfolk Hoy. 2001. “Teacher Efficacy: Capturing an Elusive Construct.” Teaching and Teacher Education 17(7), 783–805. University of Waterloo. 2016. “Top 10 Careers over the Years.” https:// uwaterloo.ca/math/future-undergraduates/careers-mathematics/ top-10-careers-over-years.

31656_Clausen-black.indd 247

20-06-11 13:19

248

Cathy Bruce and Tara C. Flynn

Watts, Tyler, Greg Duncan, Robert Seigler, and Pamela Davis-Kean. 2014. “What’s Past Is Prologue: Relations between Early Mathematics Knowledge and High School Achievement.” Educational Researcher 43(7), 352–60. Whitehead, Jack, and Jean McNiff. 2006. Action Research: Living Theory. Thousand Oaks, ca: Sage.

31656_Clausen-black.indd 248

20-06-11 13:19

part d

Participatory Action Research In participatory action research (pa r ), the research process ­generates and legitimizes knowledge to support social change. Historically, pa r was associated with giving voice to marginalized communities and human rights activism to enact social change and was an alternative philosophy of social research (Kemmis and McTaggart 2000). Participatory action research promotes collaboration to understand and explore solutions to problems associated with improving practice and programs and to promote scholarship (Kemmis and McTaggart 2000; 2005; Reason 1994). The researchers are a team of stakeholders or people who have a personal stake in what is being researched. It is the research method that builds capacity of the people who experience the issue firsthand because they are enabled to take leadership in creating the change. Unlike traditional research, which has a rear-view mirror research design, par looks forward for change (Kemmis and McTaggart 2000; 2005). Participatory action research serves as a learning process in which the participants engage in a professional development cycle. Researchers and respondents enter into a reflective inquiry cycle that alters their unfolding histories. Focusing on specific practices, programs, or issues allows for reconstruction of, discussion on, and reflection on their unique, real circumstances. The topic of discussion is not an abstract concept in a hypothetical scenario; the situations are real and practical, and the purpose is to enable action. By understanding their practices, participatory action researchers become aware of how they could transform their practices. Participatory action researchers investigate their reality to change it.

31656_Clausen-black.indd 249

20-06-11 13:19

250

Part D

Participants reflect, define the problem, gather evidence by collecting and analyzing data, share perspectives to determine what actions to follow, and evaluate the changes to learn the effectiveness of the change; then the reflective cycle perpetuates the cycle of data collection, reflection, and action. Addressing the inequality between researchers and subjects, par  is an empowering methodology for researchers and community members to conduct research to develop solutions to produce knowledge and solve problems. In a traditional, positivist perspective research, the researcher is the authority with the wisdom to generate theory and collect and analyze the data and has the experience and skills to study the subjects’ reality. The subjects or practitioners provide insight on the practices within the site. Participatory action research challenges the foundation of existing power and authority to assert that power is shared between the researcher and the researched, and the construction of expertise is expanded beyond the researcher to include all participants. The researched become partners in the decision-making and research process toward a democratic knowledge production. Members collaborate on the research process, including selecting a topic, data collection and analysis, and proposed action as a result of the research findings. Traditionally, participants are controlled, manipulated, and observed. Participatory action research flips the mirror around to posit participants as observers who bring to the inquiry their interests and values, which has an impact on the phenomena being observed. Participants are not passive respondents being researched in pa r ; rather, they are actively involved in the research process. Unequal power relations throughout the process must be considered and acknowledged to create meaningful, democratic participation. Participatory action researchers are able to unfold their experience through exploring their practice, program, or issue of concern. At the beginning of the research process, those leading the investigation should clearly define the responsibilities and time commitment because pa r can be a time-consuming and lengthy process. It is important to identify specific and effective ways to communicate research findings with all stakeholders. The research method is a plan or strategy, is linked to the desired outcomes, and can use a range of qualitative and quantitative methods, or both. In

31656_Clausen-black.indd 250

20-06-11 13:19



Participatory Action Research 251

traditional research, the results are in a report, often shared only with administration, not the practitioners who participated in the research. In pa r, the results and potential action are shared with the participants, peers of the research team to create networks of communication of action. Participatory action research may be criticized as too biased, which may tempt research members of a pa r to minimize or hide their partiality. Traditional research conducted from outside the site, however, may not collect accurate data from the respondents. A reality for all types of action research, including participatory action research, is that not all participants are involved with the same level of commitment. Some people may be interested in something else, or they may resist involvement. The following chapters provide readers with the opportunity to critically reflect on varied approaches to and perspectives on pa r . Central to the discussion related to pa r is the understanding that this research is for social change. This section begins with a ­discussion on the creative exploration of performative inquiry as participatory action research, which presents possibilities to collaboratively create, perform, critically reflect on, and enact new learning and make connections to lived experiences. Working with youth in participatory action research presents ethical and political imperatives in critical and feminist pa r . Engaging youth, especially youth who are marginalized, presents ethical complexities in the precarious critical/feminist neoliberal contexts. Another par approach is presented in an equity-based teacher education initiative, which examines a diverse schools project. In collaboration with their ­associate teacher, teacher candidates were to apply culturally responsive and relevant pedagogy. The discussion in the final chapter challenges readers to reclaim pa r from neoliberalism to reconnect pa r to its radical, anti-colonial roots to enact social change.

references

Kemmis, Stephen, and Robin McTaggart. 2000. “Participatory Action Research.” In The sage Handbook of Qualitative Research, edited by Norman K. Denzin and Yvonna S. Lincoln, 2nd ed., 567–606. Thousand Oaks, ca: Sage.

31656_Clausen-black.indd 251

20-06-11 13:19

252

Part D

– 2005. “Participatory Action Research: Communicative Action and the Public Sphere.” In The sage Handbook of Qualitative Research, edited by Norman K. Denzin and Yvonna S. Lincoln, 3rd ed., 559–603. Thousand Oaks, ca: Sage. Reason, Peter. 1994. “Three Approaches to Participative Inquiry.” In The sage Handbook of Qualitative Research, edited by Norman K. Denzin and Yvonna S. Lincoln, 324–39. Thousand Oaks, c a : Sage.

31656_Clausen-black.indd 252

20-06-11 13:19

14 Performing Participatory Action Research Stepping Forth out of Leadership Lynn Fels They enter single file, marching one by one, into the centre of an empty space, four women, each issuing a repetitive vocal sound. They pause, face us without expression, and then lie on their backs on the classroom floor, eyes closed. As we lean over our desks to peer down on them, they fall silent, breath moves in their bodies, barely perceptible. Time passes. We await indication of a conclusion.

Hannah Arendt inquires of educators whether they love our children enough so as to engage them in the world’s renewal, not as we imagine it should be but as those who follow after us will embody (1961). Performing participatory action research is an invitation to perform into presence new possible worlds and to recognize that in so doing, we are poised at the interstices of choice (Appelbaum 1995). “What we do,” Varela (1987, 62) says, “is what we know, and ours is but one of many possible worlds. It is not a mirroring of the world, but the laying down of a world.” As a performance arts educator and researcher, I encourage participants to actively interrogate their lives, to become cognizant of contextual scripts, relationships, and environments that perform them, to question and resist what is, to imagine what has not yet become. My work is a pedagogical endeavour that listens to the yearning and desires of the not-yet said – “not walls of cement, but the melodies of your temperature” (Barba 1995, 162) – played within empty spaces (Brook 1968) of possible action and interaction through collaborative

31656_Clausen-black.indd 253

20-06-11 13:19

254

Lynn Fels

creativity and inquiry. Through a variety of performative interventions, we embark on exploratory journeys, interrogating what is, what is absent, and what may arrive through our playmaking, reflecting, and calling each other into presence. My hope is that our inquiries together will reveal the prescribed scripts, expectations, and presumptions that perform our lives and that, in so doing, invite new ways of relational engagement with ourselves, each other, and the environments within which we dwell. Within these empty spaces of performative exploration, moments arrive that startle, moments that astonish, confuse, surprise, irritate. Moments that evoke resistance or call us to attention become action sites of inquiry within which, through reflection, shared dialogue, and renewed action, learning is performed and made visible. The scene that opens this chapter occurred during a graduate class during which students were asked to create and perform a scene that embodies the issues, ideas, and possible conclusions arising from small-group discussions around an assigned text. How do we perform theory into action? is our over-arching question. We are approaching the end of our evening class. The four women lie motionless on the floor, and in this moment I experience the complexities (and complicities) of performing participatory action research, a performative interruption that awakens me to new understandings of pedagogical leadership and authority. p e r f o r m at i v e i n q u i r y a s pa rt i c i pat o r y action research

Performative inquiry as participatory action research recognizes the possibilities of inquiry and learning that dwell within our abilities to collaboratively create, perform, reflect on, and, then, enact new learning, new recognitions. Performative inquiry is a pedagogical practice of inquiry attending to what arrives through creative action and reflection, engaging with what we may or may not know. The creative catalyst may be an issue, a policy, an encounter, an object, a relationship; what informs performative inquiry are “our bodies, imaginations, experiences (shared and individual), feelings, memories, biases, fears, judgments, and prejudgments, hopes, and desires – simply, being becoming” (Fels 1998, 29). Participatory action research through performative inquiry is located within and through creative exploration and the individual

31656_Clausen-black.indd 254

20-06-11 13:19



Performing Participatory Action Research 255

and collective reflection and dialogue that follow. Through performative inquiry, social, political, communal, religious, and institutional scripts may be called into question. What we learn through our performative inquiries together informs our understanding of what we are exploring and even that which we had not intended. Performing participatory action research through performative inquiry embodies critical reflection, creative resilience and improvisation, metaphorical sensitivity and awareness, the ability to recognize connections to lived experience. As in action research, what matters as we engage in our performative explorations is a collective and individual willingness to participate, to reflect, to constructively and creatively critique, and to put into action what is learned from our shared experiences. Theatre director Eugenio Barba (1995, 162) requests of his actors, “I don’t want to see dance. I don’t want to see theatre. I want to find myself face to face with that which ‘is-in-life’ and which reawakens echoes and silences.” On the individual level of the actor, a precarious balance must be established if “life action” is to be realized. “The aim,” Barba (1995, 19) explains, “is permanently unstable balance.” With each offering in performative inquiry, we are thrown temporarily offbalance in order to see again what we may fail to see within the midst of our everyday experience, practices, and relationships. Revealing assumptions, stereotypes, dichotomies, biases, habits of engagement and expectations requires a willingness to be uncomfortable, to encounter feelings of disorientation and resistance. What is required when we embark upon performative inquiry is a willingness to dwell within uncertainty, ambiguity, the not-yet revealed. Students arrive from a multiplicity of practices and life experiences into my courses. I invite them to participate in a variety of activities that encourage them to perform their questions, their curiosities, their knowing, and not-yet knowing. Tableau, role drama, improvisations, scenes become embodied performative inquiries “working towards practical outcomes, and also … creating new forms of understanding” (Reason and Bradbury 2008, 4). The pieces that we collectively create, improvise, and perform are simultaneously artefacts of our explorations and learning and invitations for those who receive the work to make meaning, to interrogate, to question, to receive with pedagogical curiosity, and to act anew. Those engaged are often surprised, for the act of performing can release what is not yet known. I seek to engage with my students within pedagogical inquiries that embrace decentralized control, a co-emergent curriculum, a conscious

31656_Clausen-black.indd 255

20-06-11 13:19

256

Lynn Fels

interruption to the practices of a conventional classroom. I am confident in my role as a facilitator, keeping open spaces for shared authorship and leadership. And yet, within the space of the twenty minutes of the performative piece described in this chapter, a stop moment: a crack appears that reveals a prescribed learning space imposed by time, by form, and yes, alas, by my position of authority. stop moments:

“tug

on the sleeve”

As a performance research educator, I am drawn to moments that offer glimpses into the as yet unknown worlds to come; I am not seeking “the perfect offering” because I understand that “there is a crack in everything / that’s how the light gets in,” as beloved poet Leonard Cohen (1993, 373) reminds us. Performing participatory action research calls us to attend to stop moments of pedagogical crises, interruption, surprise, astonishment. Philosopher David Appelbaum (1995, xi), in his writing, introduces the concept of the stop, a moment in which possibility of choice is recognized: “no theoretical construct, the stop is an actual moment, the moment of poise … The stop lives in the interstices of action … it gives us a key to a deeper engagement in a meaning that unfolds our lives. For it offers a choice. Either to remain habit-bound or to regain freedom in one’s approach to an endeavour. The stop is the advent of an intelligence of choice.” Adopting Appelbaum’s notion of the stop into practice, I introduce my undergraduate and graduate students to a practice of noticing stop moments, which I liken to a child’s tug on the sleeve (Fels 2012). A stop moment is not a literal stop but an awakening to choice through action. A stop moment calls us to attention to what is not yet revealed – a vulnerability, an intimacy. A stop moment requires attentive embodied listening. A stop moment encourages us to see our experiences, our relationship to others, our context, our places of encounter through a different lens; a stop moment invites us to question our habits of engagement, to re-imagine, to engage anew. A stop moment leads us to interrogate the gaps within our perceived understanding. A stop moment may arrest us; a stop moment is an action site of inquiry into which we stumble, arms flung wide, as if in flight. Through stop moments, habits of engagement, stereotypes, dichotomies are identified; our responsibility is an embodied awareness as we

31656_Clausen-black.indd 256

20-06-11 13:19



Performing Participatory Action Research 257

cease sleepwalking through our everyday existence and become active participants in the unfolding possible worlds that we co-create with others. As citizens, educators, participants in daily life, our responsibility, suggests noted educator Maxine Greene (1978, 42), is “wideawakeness,” a moral imperative that requires creativity, resilience, compassion, and renewal. The stop moment is a gap that dwells within collective engagement and collective re-imagination within which the not-yet realized is played into being through performance, whether on the stage, in the classroom, or within the action sites of our lived experience. As Taylor and Saarinen (1994, 5) remind us, mind the gap between what is known and yet to be known and what is impossible to know, a humility of attention, recognizing each moment as a moment of opportunity, a moment of risk. Our responsibility then as educators and researchers is to nurture spaces of possible natality within the gap between what was and what might be, located between the past and the future yet to be realized. Our responsibility is to ensure that the gap “remains a space of freedom and possibility” (Levinson 2001, 30). And yet, unless we are attentive, stop moments easily slip our noticing. During our explorations together, I invite students to identify and write to the stop moments that tug on their sleeves, reflecting on why these moments matter, what learning can be realized, how choices of action are limited by our own failure to see what else is possible (Fels 2015). As poet Antonio Machado so beautifully writes, through our performative inquiries, we “lay down a path in walking.” And, as Machado ([1930] 1987, 63) reminds us, it is only in turning around, “that we see the road we have travelled … wanderer there is no path/ only foam on ocean waves.” Stop moments cannot be orchestrated into being; we cannot create stop moments for our scholarly amusement or inquiry; we can only create conditions within which such moments may arise. Performing participatory action research through performative inquiry requires attention to how we engage with each other, to the content and form of the performative explorations we undertake collectively, to reflect in collaboration and step forth once again into creative action for further inquiry. Performative explorations such as role drama, tableau, and improvisation are exploratory interventions that call us to cocreate, co-enact, and co-reflect. As we perform our learning into new action, we further our inquiry through reflection and representation. Performing participatory action research through performative inquiry

31656_Clausen-black.indd 257

20-06-11 13:19

258

Lynn Fels

requires that we attend to the stop moments that call us to attention and reflect upon why they arrested us; thus, we perform meaningmaking of lived experience, “enlarging the space of the possible” (Sumara and Davis 1997, 299). This writing is born of a stop moment: A prolonged tug on the sleeve that arrests us in the scene that opens this chapter. This stop moment called me to attend to the gap of what I had perceived in my relationship with my students as one of a shared leadership. A leadership of control in the form of time, scripted by activity, was invisible to me, and so this stop moment arrests me. Perhaps like walking, I forget that teaching requires a willingness to be thrown off-balance with each step I take in the presence of my students. a precarious balance of leadership

Friday evening edges onwards to 9:05 pm. Class ends at 9:20. There are two more groups waiting to perform. The four women remain motionless. Their bodies are a weight of time that does not conform to anticipated endings and applause. Perplexed, uncertain what we should do, the students watching and I glance at each other. What do we need to do to conclude the scene? I imagine I have the answer. “Maybe they are waiting for us to join them by making sounds of our own.” I begin to sound slow interrupted whistles. Following my lead, a student knocks his knuckles on his desk. Another crumples paper. Another hums. A haphazard, uncertain orchestration of sound. I am guilty of enacting leadership without consultation, presuming permission and authority. I suspect resistance in the room … to my participation?

Performing participatory action research requires an engagement of reciprocity whereby leadership is performed by stepping forth into action or stepping back to allow others to enact what matters (Nilson, Fels, and Gopaul 2016). Performing participatory action research is consultative in practice, which requires dialogue, and is collaboratively performed as each individual attends to what emerges and improvises through deeply listening to what is being offered: a co-emergent curriculum that requires and anticipates a shared and decentralized leadership, one that is fluid, relational, and resonant. As a researcher and educator, I attend to the curricular space of lived experience (Van Manen 2016; Fels 2010), which is simultaneously an action site of inquiry and learning. But lived experience is only part

31656_Clausen-black.indd 258

20-06-11 13:19



Performing Participatory Action Research 259

of the performance that is us; what also matters are the gaps, anticipations of a future, the here and now of being present, in action. A coemergent curriculum (Davis, Kieren, and Sumara 1996) is co-created in the spaces between teacher and students, content as embodied form, shaped by environment, context, and relationship. Those who perform curriculum into being may be startled by the unexpected as issues are explored and by offerings that are collectively and individually introduced within performative spaces of possible inter-relationship and inter-action. A co-emergent curriculum is a pedagogical journey landscape within which dwell the melodies of our temperature, seeking harmony, attending to and welcoming dissonance, interrogating what arises (embodied, silent, spoken) between. Curriculum here and now is imagined as dynamic, fluid, emergent, co-creative – a living verb, not a noun – that calls us into presence, into action. Similarly so is leadership performed through collective and reciprocal action into being. Leadership is an act of reciprocity, willingly offered (or not). Leadership in creative practice is ideally shared, a relational engagement that recognizes the expertise, creative spirit, and lived experience embodied by each individual as being of unique value and contribution to the collective endeavour (Freire [1970] 2000). The performative work being created is improvisational and collaboratively co-created. Thus, what learning arrives when an invisible script of leadership is revealed? troubling leadership

I pride myself in having no script, and yet here in this moment I am hungry for resolution … this in-between space is uncomfortable. What to do? In co-emergent curriculum, intervention in the form of control by the teacher is problematic. Can I step in and interrupt what is unfolding? Impose time constraints? Remind the group of their responsibilities for the groups yet to follow? The clock tick tocks resolutely toward the end of class. Wanting to remain within the performative journey landscape that the women have created, I imitate the sound of boots marching, pounding my hands in a beat on the desktop. To my ears, in my imagination, I hear the approach of a guard, increasing in volume, orchestrating what is, I confess, an attempt to impose a performative conclusion, as I seek to make my authority present. Okay guys! Time to wrap it up. The boots, sounding wonderfully authoritative, arrive at a standstill. Nothing happens. Bodies on the ground. Dead bodies. An unwelcome image of a

31656_Clausen-black.indd 259

20-06-11 13:19

260

Lynn Fels

massacre stops me. Bodies abandoned in a morgue. My boots, in impotent leadership, march away. The presence of bodies lying motionless on a classroom floor is disconcerting. My performative efforts to find the key to our release have failed. No quietly whispered “end scene” is offered to free us from this inbetween space. We linger precariously on Appelbaum’s hinge. We fall into uneasy presence. No one moves. What happens in the absence of leadership? Is leadership embodied within the actions we enact? In this interruption of what is expected, what holds us in suspended animation? Are we witnessing a leadership of interruption?

Greenwood and Levin (2003, 145) recommend that when undertaking participatory action research, participants and researchers collaboratively “define the objectives, construct the research questions, learn research skills, pool knowledge and efforts, conduct the research, interpret the results and apply what is learned to produce positive change.” Such is the approach I take in my teaching and research in the gaps within lived curriculum; we are performing participatory action research through performative inquiry, with a focus on stop moments. Engaging in research through performative activities co-created by students is a curious endeavour, replete with tugs on my sleeve that inform my pedagogy. I have always imagined that a shared leadership is enacted in my classes through a collaborative creative practice; all the scenes, one-act plays, tableaus are created independent of instructor intervention; I introduce the form of the activity and theme or focus from which students create their work. Enabling constraints such as form, time limit, and the focus of attention (theme, issue, text) facilitate creative activities, providing a framework or format for collaborative problem-solving, decision-making, and eventual performance. Afterwards, we debrief and reflect upon our experiences – whether a one-act play, a role drama, or a simple tableau – and share with each other what we individually and collectively experienced, what we learned, and how we might apply our learning to our lived experience, here and now, and, we hope, in the future. On this particular evening, I remember having simply run out of ideas of how to follow through on small-group discussions about a text that I had assigned. I didn’t want a reporting back or a group summary, and in a moment of inspiration simply said, “create something that illustrates what you talk about” and sent them off. No

31656_Clausen-black.indd 260

20-06-11 13:19



Performing Participatory Action Research 261

enabling constraints (Sumara, and Simmt 2003; Fels 2009), just the text they had been assigned to read and a dismissive wave of hand. They were graduate students. They knew what to do, how to enact what I now recognize as an imposed formula: collaboratively discuss, create, perform the task assigned, followed by group discussion and reflection. Identify your stop moment and write about why it matters. There is always an endpoint for these activities, until this moment here and now – After I assign the task, I wander from group to group, eavesdropping, and I discover one group seemingly off-topic. Rather than discussing the text at hand, one of the students is leading a conversation on women’s bodies, acts of resistance, the power of the creative act when authority is confronted by the unexpected during protest. Listening to their conversation, I fail to see the connection to our text yet decide not to interrupt. Here, emergent conversation is a form of decentralized leadership guiding participants toward an as yet unknown engagement of meaning-making. Reason and Bradbury (2008, 9) note, “Research-ing with people means that we are engaged with full persons, and the exploration is based directly on their understanding of their own actions and experience rather than filtered through an outsider’s perspective.” Thus, rather than impose my own expectations, I slip away – perhaps a mistake given the lie-in now being enacted on the floor of my classroom. A performative response to the reading of a text becomes a radical act, calling us into reflective action. “[Performing] participatory action research provides a vital way of resuscitating and maintaining a questioning and participatory democratic practice, one with the potential to unleash a diaspora of radical struggle, hope and possibility across generations … by which research [and learning] collectives can interrupt the drip feed, engage critical questions, produce new knowledge, provoke expanded audiences and ask, in the language of the poet Marge Piercy (1973) how can we ‘be of use?’” (Fine and Torre 2008, 417). Our challenge as educators and researchers is to create welcoming, thoughtful, creative spaces for the performance of unexpected challenges that startle us out of unseen scripts into new dialogue and relationship. To make visible the bonds that restrain us. Natality calls us into action with the hope of learning that which we do not anticipate. Gordon (2001, 21) writes, “Natality stands for those moments in our lives when we take responsibility for ourselves in relation to

31656_Clausen-black.indd 261

20-06-11 13:19

262

Lynn Fels

others. In this way, natality initiates an active relation to the world. It signifies those moments in our lives (and there are many) in which we attempt to answer the question that Arendt argues is at the basis of all action and that is posed to every newcomer to the world: ‘Who are you?’” Four women step forth into leadership, embodying resistance, bodies as metaphor, as a means of making visible the unsaid, exposing the scripts hidden within a pedagogy that fails to recognize its own limiting constraints embodied within its practices. What comes into question as we observe the bodies on the floor is how time controls, how expectations of form limit, and how embodied action of interruption can disturb and make problematic a (false) confidence of engagement. performing leadership

An anxious waiting-for-something-to-happen filters through the room. This group has gone off-script. How now to respond? A student initiates the sound of snoring. An unfortunate moment of failed humour. Another student walks out, the door slams behind him. Tension mounts. A woman rises from her desk, “I know.” She walks to the line of women lying on the floor and joins them. And beyond my perceptual view, two other women rise from their seats and are now lying on the floor, one body draped across the other. The weight of waiting for a conclusion hangs in the air. I am intensely uncomfortable; should I step in? Resolution becomes a stop moment suspended in the hinge between.

Performing participatory action research brings into clarity what is blurred, invisible, unnoticed, or absent, embodied with the gap of our knowing. With this experience, I am awakened to the pedagogical script that I enact, a script of unspoken expectations, constraints imposed by time and form, my failure to see how easily we may be willingly co-opted into invisible scripts. I am alerted to how we are controlled by the very forms of practice within which we engage. Bodies lying on the floor interrupts my perception of my practice as one of reciprocal leadership but rather one enacted by form and time and expectation. I did not see my leadership of constraint, a blindness to the seduction of engagement as illustrated so beautifully by the characters in All the Light We Cannot See (Doerr 2014), where “blind” action is metaphorical and lived.

31656_Clausen-black.indd 262

20-06-11 13:19



Performing Participatory Action Research 263

Taylor and Saarinen (1994) caution us to mind the gap between lived experience and the action sites of scholarship within which we dwell, teach, and interrogate. Leadership is a pedagogical journey into co-created landscapes. Pedagogical leadership is complex and complicit, arriving in multiple forms of engagement: leadership that is earned, leadership that is assigned, leadership that is volunteered, leadership that is shared and reciprocal, and leadership that is an act of interruption, resistance inviting awakening. My students continue to hold fast, in stillness, in resistance, in invitation to action that dwells outside of conventional response – even as the clock is tick-tick-ticking like a bomb, approaching the ringing of the bell. The gap between holds the possibility of natality poised between past and future, that is here and now (Arendt 1958; 1961; Meyer and Fels 2009). Who are you? Who am I in this encounter between us? Who will I become within this uncharted space that is the gap that holds all the possible worlds that we might bring into being? Performative inquiry invites us to attend to the metaphors that arrive. Marching boots. Bodies in a morgue. A sense of impotency, authority denied, of arriving too late. Metaphors alert us to new possibilities, forgotten memories, embodied secrets that speak to what has not yet been said. Metaphors make present what has not yet been made visible, clarity blurred by time, by distancing, by denial. Metaphors resonate, speaking to what the body already knows (Snowber 2016). As writer Julie Salverson (2016, 167) writes, “The metaphors being revealed are not surprising: they found me out, I was exposed, I had nowhere to hide.” We are all, in our multiple ways, exposed when we step into uncomfortable places of not-knowing, undoing. How we are received, and how we, in turn, receive others, is the space where reciprocal vulnerability becomes an action site of new possible learning (Thommason 2017). Leadership, then, is a performative engagement of reciprocity, unfolding in empty spaces of a performance as yet to be embodied. Heidegger’s ([1927] 1996) clearing emerges, and we meet ourselves, and each other, in an unanticipated space of vulnerability where navigation becomes an invitation, an opening to what we have yet to explore. We stumble, hesitate; like pedestrians on an escalator out of service, we need to learn how to navigate stairs now foreign in the spacing of steps; in the unexpected absence of mechanized movement, we are awkward in our stride. We are thrown off-balance. The classroom becomes an unfamiliar place, and we are discomforted,

31656_Clausen-black.indd 263

20-06-11 13:19

264

Lynn Fels

disconcerted, curious, confused, amused, wondering how now to engage. In a moment of recognition, we come to realize that leadership is suspect, complicit, and embodied. Here lies the invitation of a leadership of performative interruption. Form is challenged. Bodies demand recognition, bringing into presence an uncomfortable awareness of the rules, constraints, and expectations that exist within what I as instructor, my students as participants, seek to perform in a space of what we hope will be one of shared leadership, inquiry, hospitality, and responsibility. Attending to our ongoing struggle – invisible, unspoken, embodied – to break the code of what reigns in the constraints and practices of pedagogical and communal environments speaks to “our ability [or lack thereof] to see what is questionable” (Gadamer 1976, as quoted in Meyer and Fels 2009, 275). The four women aligned side by side on the floor resist our shared expectation that they in their position of responsibility will provide a finite ending to their scene. Their performance, this refusal to “end scene” calls us all to wonder: how do we perform in an action site where protocol is absent, where the question who will step forward in leadership to free us from this impasse? rests uneasily, unanswered among us all. Questions emerge, throwing us off-balance: who will author this moment to conclusion? at what cost? Who among us will arrive to rescue us? How will we rescue ourselves? Who do we become within this moment of stop? Here and now, we become cognizant of how leadership is held precariously balanced within the moment, within the texts and environments of our own making. Performing participatory action research, as this moment reveals, asks us to be wide awake to the interruptions, the expectations, the contexts, the relational dynamics, and invisible scripts that play out in spaces and actions of encounter. We are called from an articulated negotiation of what we know and expect to one of releasing control of the script, of engaging in a willingness to not-know, to undo (Frantzich 2013), thus stepping out of leadership so that others might invite us into new learning, new meaning-making. s u r r e n d e r : i n l e a r n i n g t h at w h i c h i s i n v i s i b l e

There is no ending, no applause, we remain suspended, living in Appelbaum’s stop, the hinge, an in-between space “neither poised nor unpoised, yet moves both ways” (1995, 16) in which we realize that we

31656_Clausen-black.indd 264

20-06-11 13:19



Performing Participatory Action Research 265

are stuck much like poor Winnie the Pooh in Rabbit’s hole, halfway between, where lived experience and performance neither ends nor begins. And yet this space is curiously freeing, we are in the midst of performative inquiry. Conventional boundaries and expectations of action are interrupted as we awaken to something new, bodies as interruption … bodies as resistance … bodies that reveal that which we fail or refuse to see … bodies as invitation to natality.

Such moments of resistance, interruption, disruption call us to attention, offering action sites of inquiry and reflection, inviting us to reconsider, re-imagine what might be in the moment of action, in the gap between. Bringing to our research pedagogical and reflective attention to what arrives and embodying a willingness to encounter the multiplicity of experiences and feelings that touch us, collectively, individually, makes possible interstanding (Taylor and Saarinen 1994, 15–16). Meaning-making is co-created in interaction. Each performance invites a possibility of natality (Arendt 1958; 1961), of asking ourselves, who will I become in this moment of encounter? Our intent is not to arrive at answers but to open spaces of new possible beginnings, new possible relationships with each other and others, including not-human beings, nurturing curiosity, surrender, hospitality, forgiveness, joy in our “not-knowing, undoing” (Frantzich and Fels 2018, 4). What we learn, what I learn, through this experience is that humility and willingness, generosity and respect are at the heart of our collaborative explorations together. We learn that students’ critical and creative spirit of curiosity, resistance, and interruption embodied through action enlarges the space of the possible, revealing the presence of boundaries beyond which dwell impossibility, grace, release, and surrender. Performing participatory action research invites risks, opportunities, surprises, unfinished moments that linger beyond the ending of class, that call us again and again to question our practices as educators, as researchers, as citizens within our communities, in leadership, in collaboration, in our unique ways of being present in the world. The prone bodies on the classroom floor make visible the limitations of what we believe we already know. To recognize the limitations of our perceptions, the possibilities embodied within what we experience – the gap between – of what is offered and what is received is the gift of performance. Bodies stepping out of role as graduate students perform resistance as invitation, offering an interrupted moment

31656_Clausen-black.indd 265

20-06-11 13:19

266

Lynn Fels

revealing the presence of time, of form, of expectation with an invisible script that I did not see. These bodies are living metaphors … that speak to patriarchy, hierarchy, collective action, communal responsibility, the power and vulnerability of bodies, the possibilities and impossibilities, and the gap between that lie beyond this moment here and now. In performing a leadership of interruption, my students make visible bodies as pedagogical action, “forging unexpected social relations and unsettling deeply entrenched social forces in the process … offering the possibility of hope” (Levinson 2001, 27). My hope for participatory action research as it is performed here and now, and into the future, is one of imaginative mindfulness, embodied in our actions, in our relationships, in our willingness to be vulnerable to the unexpected. That in our work in participatory action research, we attend to those interruptions that awaken us from what is expected or thought to be known to what is not yet imagined into being. That we be willing, in our leadership, to be in a state of “permanently unstable balance.” That we receive what is offered with grace, surrender to what is not yet known. Performing participatory action research is an embodied dwelling within the gap that is our research, our collective curiosity, our deep hope to engage in meaningful ways with others in the search for whom we might become and what we might create in the presence of each other. Participatory action research is an interruption, an invitation to be present in action, to listen deeply, releasing leadership so that we all might be present in ways that respect, welcome, and nurture the gifts and challenges each of us offer. Performing bodies reveal horizons of new possible worlds yet to be conceived in action. Bodies are eloquent witnesses, embodying that which we do not yet know, revealing what we will come to know or may only glimpse through a moment of startled recognition. As we encounter each other, each of us positioned within multiple perspectives, experiences, ambitions, desires, and yearning, born within a time where home and belonging beg to be performed anew, the challenge of performing participatory action research lies in a willingness to welcome that which is not yet known, which makes us uncomfortable, so that we might seek new atonement with what is offered in the moment. We struggle to perform, collectively and individually, actions of truth and reconciliation, of forgiveness and generosity, of humanity in an increasingly dangerous world as we invite our children into the world’s renewal. Here is the gift of performing participatory action

31656_Clausen-black.indd 266

20-06-11 13:19



Performing Participatory Action Research 267

research in all its ways of being, imperfections, and stumbling. This awakening, a crack in my inability to see what is, is the learning I have come to in this writing of a shared stop moment. My students’ gift – bringing forth a new possible world, simultaneously offering resistance/liberation from what is known, from what is expected, revealing what is and what might be, recognizing a gap between – tugs at my sleeve. acknowledgments

I would like to acknowledge Renata Aebi, who proposed the idea of embodied resistance during her small-group discussion, Tanis Sawkins, who encouraged the courageous members in her group to stay on the floor for as long as possible, and all my students for the learning emerging from their acts of interruption that pull us into seeing the gaps of re-imagining research between past and future.

references

Appelbaum, David. 1995. The Stop. Albany, ny: State University of New York Press. Arendt, Hannah. 1958. The Human Condition. Chicago, il: University of Chicago Press. – 1961. Between Past and Future: Six Exercises of Political Thought. New York, n y: Viking. Barba, Eugenio. 1995. The Paper Canoe: A Guide to Theatre Anthropology. Translated by Richard Fowler. London, UK: Routledge. Brook, Peter. 1968. The Empty Space. New York, ny: Antheneum. Cohen, Leonard. 1993. “Anthem.” In Stranger Music: Collected Poems and Songs, 363. Toronto, ON : McClelland and Stewart. Davis, Brent, Thomas Kieren, and Dennis Sumara. 1996. “Cognition, Co-emergence, Curriculum.” Journal of Curriculum Studies 28(2), 151–69. Doerr, Anthony. 2014. All the Light We Cannot See. New York, ny: Scribner. Fels, Lynn. 1998. “In the Wind Clothes Dance on a Line.” jct : Journal of Curriculum Theorizing 14(1), 27–36. – 2009. “When Royalty Steps Forth – Role Drama as an Embodied Learning System.” Complicity: An International Journal of Complexity

31656_Clausen-black.indd 267

20-06-11 13:19

268

Lynn Fels

and Education 6(2), 124–42. http://ejournals.library.ualberta.ca/index. php/complicity/article/view/ 8823/7143. – 2010. “Coming into Presence: The Unfolding of a Moment.” Journal of Educational Controversy 5(1), 1–15. – 2012. “Collecting Data through Performative Inquiry: A Tug on the Sleeve.” Youth Theatre Journal 26(1), 50–60. doi:10.1080/08929092. 2012.678209. – 2015. “E-Postcards: Reflection as a Scholarly Pedagogical Act.” In Playing in a House of Mirrors: Applied Theatre as Reflective Pedagogical Practice, edited by Warren Linds and Elinor Vettraino, 151–74. Rotterdam, Netherlands: Sense Publishers. Fine, Michelle, and Maria Elena Torre. 2008. “Theorizing Audience, Products and Provocation.” In The sage Handbook of Action Research (2nd ed.), edited by Peter Reason and Hilary Bradbury, 407–19. Thousand Oaks, ca: Sage. Frantzich (aka Allen), Kirsten. 2013. “Theatre of the Psyche: The Emergence of Embodied Theatre Ecology and the Stage as Home (Be)coming.” PhD dissertation, Pacifica Graduate Institute. Frantzich, Kirsten, and Lynn Fels. 2018. “Embodied Theater Ecology: Illuminating the Gap through Bridging Depth Psychology’s Encounter with Performative Inquiry.” British Journal of Guidance and Counselling 46(3), 272–81. https://doi.org/10.1080/03069885.2017. 1371668. Freire, Paulo. [1970] 2000. Pedagogy of the Oppressed. Translated by Myra Bergman Ramos. New York, n y: Continuum. Gadamer, Hans Georg. 1976. Philosophical Hermeneutics. Berkeley, c a : University of California Press. Gordon, Mordechai. 2001. “Hannah Arendt on Authority: Conservatism in Education Reconsidered.” In Hannah Arendt and Education: Renewing Our Common World, edited by Mordechai Gordon, 11–36. Boulder, co: Westview. Greene, Maxine. 1978. Landscapes of Learning. New York, ny: Teachers College Press. Greenwood, Davydd, and Morten Levin. 2003. “Reconstructing the Relationships between Universities and Society through Action Research.” In The Landscape of Qualitative Research: Theories and Issues (2nd ed.), edited by Norman Denzin and Yvonna Lincoln, 131–65. Thousand Oaks, ca: Sage. Heidegger, Martin. [1927] 1996. Being and Time. Translated by Joan Stambaugh. Albany, n y: State University of New York Press.

31656_Clausen-black.indd 268

20-06-11 13:19



Performing Participatory Action Research 269

Levinson, Natasha. 2001. “The Paradox of Natality: Teaching in the Midst of Belatedness.” In Hannah Arendt and Education: Renewing our Common World, edited by G. Mordechai. Boulder, c o: Westview. Machado, Antonio. [1930] 1987. “Proverbios y cantares.” Translated by Francisco Varela. In gaia , a Way of Knowing: Political Implications of the New Biology, edited by William Irwin Thompson, 63. Hudson, ny: Lindisfarne. Meyer, Karen, and Lynn Fels. 2009. “Breaking Out: Learning Research from the Women in Prison Project.” International Review of Qualitative Inquiry 2(2), 269–90. Nilson, Michelle, Lynn Fels, and Bryan Gopaul. 2016. “Performing Leadership: Use of Performative Inquiry in Teaching Organizational Theories.” Journal of Leadership Education 15(3), 170–86. doi:1012806/V15/13/R7. Piercy, Marge. 1973. To Be of Use. Garden City, ny: Doubleday. Reason, Peter, and Hilary Bradbury. 2008. “Introduction.” In The sage Handbook of Action Research (2nd ed.), edited by Peter Reason and Hilary Bradbury, 1–11. Thousand Oaks, c a : Sage. Salverson, Julie. 2008. “Taking Liberties: A Theatre Class of Foolish Witnesses.” Research in Drama Education 13(2), 245–55. – 2016. Lines of Flight: An Atomic Memoir. Hamilton, on: Wolsak and Wynn. Snowber, Celeste. 2016. Embodied Inquiry: Writing, Living and Being through the Body. Rotterdam, Netherlands: Sense. Sumara, Dennis, and Brent Davis. 1997. “Enlarging the Space of the Possible: Complexity, Complicity, and Action Research Practices.” In Action Research as a Living Practice, edited by Terrance Carson and Dennis Sumara, 299­–312. New York, ny: Peter Lang. Sumara, Dennis, and Elaine Simmt. 2003. “Complexity and Collectivity: On the Emergence of a Few Ideas.” Proceedings of the 2003 Complexity Science and Educational Research Conference, 16–18 October, Edmonton, ab. www.complexityandeducation.ca. Taylor, Mark, and Esa Saarinen. 1994. Imagologies. London, UK: Routledge. Thommason, Amy. 2017. “The Gardener, the Actor, and the Educator: Six Lessons towards Creating and Cultivating Spaces of Vulnerability between Theatre for Young Audiences and Education.” ma thesis, Simon Fraser University. Van Manen, Max. 2016. Researching Lived Experience: Human Science for an Action Sensitive Pedagogy (2nd ed.). New York, ny: Routledge.

31656_Clausen-black.indd 269

20-06-11 13:19

270

Lynn Fels

Varela, Francisco. 1987. “Laying down a Path in Walking.” In gaia , a Way of Knowing: Political Implications of the New Biology, edited by William Irwin Thompson, 48–64. Hudson, ny: Lindisfarne.

31656_Clausen-black.indd 270

20-06-11 13:19

15 Ethics and Politics in Participatory Action Research with Youth in Education Contexts Linda Eyre

introduction

Participatory action research (pa r) with youth, grounded in critical and feminist theories, aims to challenge historical, hierarchical research practices of conventional research by: a) shifting the researcher–­ participant relationship from research on or for to research by and with youth; and b) challenging positivist assumptions about researcher neutrality by making the goal of social action explicit. In this chapter, I explore the ethical and political imperative in critical and feminist par and reflect on the ethical tensions raised in meanings attached to “participation” and “action” when working with youth in participatory research projects. My point is not to be prescriptive but rather to join the ongoing conversation about the future direction of par with youth in education contexts. For some time, critical and feminist scholars have called for more critical approaches to par (e.g., Berge and Ve 2000; Brown and Jones 2001; Greenwood and Levin 2007; Griffiths 1998; Jordan and Kapoor 2016; Kemmis and McTaggart 2005; Love 2012; Peterat and Smith 2001), pressing researchers to engage in ethical reflection on how their research is implicated in oppressive practices. I understand this to mean more careful attention to relations of power, a heightened focus on furthering social justice and social transformation, and a more situated approach to research ethics, all of which require researchers to go beyond the conventional requirements of most research ethics boards.

31656_Clausen-black.indd 271

20-06-11 13:19

272

Linda Eyre

My purpose is not to determine strict ethical guidelines for engaging in par with youth. I agree with Lorraine Code et al. (1991, 10), who call for a more situated approach to research ethics that “values dialogue and negotiation … not universal rules.” Rather, my purpose is to draw out the tensions surrounding participation and action in neoliberal regimes in order to further a more ethical approach to par with youth, especially youth who are marginalized. Further, valuing youth as holders and creators of knowledge is key to forming ethical relations with youth in par projects. Lisa Loutzenheiser (2007, 111) suggests that researchers begin “with the premise of students as worthy experts and theorists of their own lives … in such a manner that representations that are created complicate and disrupt perceptions of adolescents.” With social transformation as a research goal, I see par by and with youth as having tremendous potential in this endeavour. The chapter is organized into four sections. The first section explains the precarious positioning of critical/feminist par in neoliberal contexts and the ethical dilemmas this poses. The second section brings together the voices of scholars who, for me, stand as a reminder of the values of participation and social action in par generally and with youth specifically. The third section highlights the tensions around participation and action in my recent involvement in par projects with youth that illustrate the ethical complexities of engaging in critical/ feminist par in neoliberal times. I conclude with ethical questions that may spur reflection and thereby enhance the future of par in education contexts. To begin, a few words about neoliberal governing. Bronwyn Davies (2005, 12) explains neoliberalism as: “A move from social conscience and responsibility towards an individualism in which the individual is cut loose from the social; from morality to moralistic audit-driven surveillance; from critique to mindless criticism in terms of rules and regulations combined with individual vulnerability to those new rules and regulations, which in turn press towards conformity to the group.” In public education, neoliberalism is manifested in discourses of choice, competition, efficiency, accountability, target-setting, cost-effectiveness, austerity, and performance outcomes (Apple 2006). Under neoliberal governance, the failings of education systems are framed as individual deficits and individual responsibilities (Gale and Densmore 2003), shaping approaches to curriculum, pedagogy, and research endeavours, including my own (Eyre 2002). All of which provides a precarious context for engaging with par with youth in education contexts.

31656_Clausen-black.indd 272

20-06-11 13:19



Ethics and Politics in Participatory Action Research with Youth 273

As a feminist engaged in pa r with youth, I have found Davies (2005, 1) helpful in responding to political/ethical dilemmas of neoliberal governance. She points to the importance of researchers becoming aware of “the discourses through which we are spoken and speak ourselves into existence. We must find the lines of fault and fracture those discourses. And then, in those spaces of fracture, speak new discourses, new subject positions into existence.” For me, this includes acknowledging that neoliberal discourses “shape all of our encounters with one another” (Janzen, Jeffery, and Smith 2015, 8) and recognizing how I am implicated in perpetuating neoliberal discourses through my par practices with youth. In exploring values of participation and action in par, I am reminded of what to strive for and what to refuse in going forward, while also recognizing, as Davies (2005, 5) says, “the possible is embedded in the (im)possible.” pa rt i c i pat o r y a c t i o n r e s e a r c h

Although there are various recognized forms of par utilizing a range of research methods, a common thread in critical/feminist approaches to pa r concerns a commitment to equity, social justice, and social transformation. For Julio Cammarota and Michelle Fine (2008, 215), pa r with youth furthers social transformation by “break[ing] the monopoly on who holds knowledge and for whom social research should be undertaken.” Eve Tuck and K. Wayne Yang (2014) point to the importance of pa r with youth in speaking back to theories of change that ignore or position youth on the sidelines of social movements. A similar argument can be made for par with youth in education contexts, where even those who appear to be working toward changing the conditions of young people’s lives shift the responsibility onto individuals, in effect blaming youth (as well as parents and teachers) for situations beyond their control and absolving governments of their responsibilities (Welton and Diem 2016). For pa r to contribute to social transformation, however, requires careful attention to who gets to participate in par projects and under what conditions. In Negotiating Ethical Challenges in Youth Research, Kitty te Riele and Rachel Brooks (2013) discuss ethical concerns in youth research under the following themes: youth power and agency, protection and harm prevention, and developing trust and respect. Contributors to the collection include Lucas Walsh, Rosalyn Black, and Naomi Berman (2013), who implore researchers to critically

31656_Clausen-black.indd 273

20-06-11 13:19

274

Linda Eyre

examine which young people are invited to participate in research projects and whose voices count; they also warn against reiterating deficit discourses of youth and constructing binary categories such as responsible/irresponsible, engaged/apathetic, etc., which contribute to harmful constructs of youth and further stereotyping. In neoliberal contexts, where discourses of inclusion can mask oppressive practices (Dumas 2013), who gets to participate requires careful scrutiny. For example, essentializing youth by ignoring difference contributes to racialization, heterosexism, and class violence and is especially harmful for youth who are marginalized. Further, if participants are selected to represent specific groups such as g l b t t q youth, Indigenous youth, or Black youth, there is a danger of fixing identities and reinforcing stereotypes, as well as tokenism. Deborah Britzman’s (1995) advice about queer(y)ing curriculum fits: “At the very least, what is required is an ethical project that begins to engage difference as the grounds of politicality and community” (152). She warns against the practice of merely adding marginalized voices, since “arguments for inclusion produce the very exclusions they are meant to cure” (158). The potential for pa r with youth to be yet another colonizing practice demands heightened vigilance. Marie Battiste (2013), Linda Tuhiwai Smith (2012), and Susan Strega and Leslie Brown (2015) draw attention to how Indigenous peoples have been culturally exploited and colonial practices reinforced in the name of research, including research deemed participatory. As Battiste (1998, 5) states, historical practices cannot be easily “wiped away by an informed and enlightened people.” This is no easy task in neoliberal regimes where historical practices of Eurocentrism, settler colonialism, and racism pervade research practices. For example, as Brian Beaton and Penny Carpenter (2016, 57) note in a report on their participatory action research project with remote First Nations, despite their prior knowledge of and respectful attention to ethical practices, including following the principles of o c a p (Ownership, Control, Access, and Possession), their final text was still presented in the English language only. Smith (2012) also calls for researchers to pay more attention to the ownership, interests, and benefits of research. This applies to all par projects no matter how seductive the language of participation might be. She states that researchers must ask: “Whose research is it? Who owns it? Whose interests does it serve? Who will benefit from it? Who has designed its questions and framed its scope? Who will

31656_Clausen-black.indd 274

20-06-11 13:19



Ethics and Politics in Participatory Action Research with Youth 275

carry it out? Who will write it up? How will results be disseminated?” (194). For Smith, “culturally appropriate ethics” involves Indigenous peoples as researchers of their own lives, where “questions are framed differently, priorities are ranked differently, problems are defined differently, and people participate on different terms” (196). Smith’s concerns are relevant and timely for researchers in education, including those engaged in pa r . She warns that recent calls to indigenize curriculum and the academy and increases in government funding directed to Indigenous research fit with neoliberal economic policies and the “reinscription of positivist approaches to scientific research” (191). Even qualitative researchers have to learn how to ask critical questions in a neoliberal research environment where positivist discourses predominate (Dolby 2016). Ethical concerns around participation also involve attention to critical reflexivity, which requires researchers to be sensitive to positionality (Hall 1990) – how our interconnecting experiences of, for example, age, gender, race, class, sexuality, and ability shape what we know and the questions we ask. As neoliberal subjects, recognizing the discourses that bind us to processes and practices of marginalization is paramount. For example, Emma Battell Lowman and Adam Barker (2015, 7) draw attention to how “pernicious colonial dynamics” permeate conservative, liberal, and progressive discourses in Canada, including settler participatory research endeavours. Nicola Rollock (2013, 506) calls on white researchers to make “the processes of whiteness visible.” She says, “to do otherwise … is to enact and endorse a paradigm interred in racial division and hierarchy.” Rollock further warns that researchers and participants with shared histories may not be sufficient to overcome historical colonial research practices of exploitation. Critical reflexivity requires pedagogical relations that foster trust and an ethic of care. In pa r with youth, consideration must be given to the role youth will play in a project: will they be research subjects, research assistants, equal partners in the research or take the lead, and how will their participation be supported and sustained throughout a project (Gardner et al. 2016)? Whatever role youth play, how will they be protected against exploitation and coercion? Sandra Kirby, Lorraine Graves, and Colleen Reid (2010, 91) implore participatory action researchers to consider carefully what data collection is justifiable, including protection against organizational “demands for disclosure of personal information.” Indeed, at times it may be advisable

31656_Clausen-black.indd 275

20-06-11 13:19

276

Linda Eyre

for youth to refuse to participate in pa r or any other research for that matter. As Monique Guishard and Eve Tuck (2014, 190) state, “Considering the long, problematic history of unethical research in non-white communities, refusals … are needed to mark forms of knowledge that the academy does not deserve.” They further point out that yet another research project may not be what is needed to further conditions of equity and social justice. This is especially relevant in neoliberal educational contexts in which youth have little influence over how they are constructed as subjects, are already under increased surveillance, and risk having their work appropriated and/ or used as a marketization ploy. I return to this concern when I consider my pa r work with youth later in the chapter. To further full participation and avoid perpetuating hierarchical research practices, Lorraine Code et al. (1991, 31) emphasize polyvocality over monovocality, which requires “hearing each other’s differences and not suppressing them in the name of party unity” and, in turn, requires developing mutual trust. This is no easy task in competitive, consumer-driven neoliberal research environments that are “turning us into people that we do not want to be” (Davies 2005, 4). In reflecting on her collaborative research with children and teachers, Sherry Rose (2012, 118) writes of the importance of “learning from, about and with” participants and the fostering of “a pedagogy of listening, a postponement of speaking, and a new-found comfort with silence.” For Rose, it means fostering “an ethic of self-in-relation to others” (210). pa rt i c i pat o r y a c t i o n r e s e a r c h

The ethical imperative implied in the language of action, suggests that par must contribute positively to social change – a requirement that necessitates heightened vigilance in contexts in which educators are expected to support and maintain neoliberal agendas. Guishard and Tuck (2014, 189) write: “If we acknowledge that young people are a diverse group, if we stay away from deficit analyses of their abilities – then respecting youth agency becomes an ethical obligation.” To fulfill promises of youth agency, Fine (2008) says par with youth must “awaken a sense of injustice and provoke social action” (220) and turn the “gaze back on inadequate educational systems” (226), thereby “pressing the question ‘What must we do?’” (227). For Morwenna Griffiths (1998, 70), research in education, including pa r , must lead

31656_Clausen-black.indd 276

20-06-11 13:19



Ethics and Politics in Participatory Action Research with Youth 277

to an “improvement of practice in education’’ whereby the language of “improvement” circles back to social justice. Nonetheless, scholars draw attention to the dangers of par projects that take up discourses of “transformation,” “emancipation,” and “community engagement” while ignoring the social, economic, and neoliberal political contexts that shape participants’ lives (Brown and Jones 2001; Dean 2015; Van den Hoonaard 2002). One might ask, “Empowering for whom?” Although not having a fine arts background myself, I was drawn to arts-based inquiry (e.g., Barone and Eisner 2012; Knowles and Cole 2008; Harris and Sinclair 2014) as a way to engage youth in pa r leading to social action and furthering social change. I resonate with Davies (2005, 2) who writes that the arts hold promise in “shifting those terms of existence” by “open[ing] up a vision of something new … at the same time as [they reveal] the intractability of the discursive forces that hold the old order in place.” Indeed, arts-based research is not without ethical challenges. As Tom Barone and Elliot Eisner (2012) remind us, the political and ethical in arts-based research are deeply interconnected (see, for example, Blum-Ross 2013; Call-Cummings and Martinez 2016; Mitchell 2011; Pink 2007; Sinding, Gray, and Nisker 2008). I provide some examples of ethical dilemmas in artsbased research later in the chapter. Disseminating pa r in written text involves ethical tensions and responsibilities too. For Laurel Richardson (1997, 108), “writing always involves ideological, aesthetic, and ethical decisions” with real consequences for the people involved. She writes, “We can never fully know what consequences our work will have on others. We cannot control context and readings. But we can have some control over what we choose to write and how to write it” (117). Rather than “writing up” research “findings,” Laurel Richardson and Elizabeth Adams St Pierre (2005, 959) articulate what it means to view writing as “a method of inquiry” in which writing is not an end product to be commodified but an ongoing conversation that “coheres with the development of ethical selves engaged in social action and social reform.” Barone and Eisner (2012) also challenge authoritarian neoliberal discourses in our written texts by asking us to consider where narrative authority lies. They ask, “Who gets to decide what themes are developed within a research text?” (133). “How can we offer a multiplicity of perspectives, each of which is fragile, fluid, tentative, and epistemologically humble?” (133), thereby providing a “democratic conversation” rather than an “ethically challenged monologue” (136). The end

31656_Clausen-black.indd 277

20-06-11 13:19

278

Linda Eyre

result is a text that is “always partial, tentative, shifting” (135), thereby inviting the reader to participate in the conversation. For Lorraine Code et al. (1991, 26), writing a collaborative text calls for a “commitment to the group” as much as “getting the idea right.” And, importantly, as Nicola Rollock (2013, 507) points out, work that is intended to address social injustice and change the lives of marginalized groups must do more than merely report “findings” to an academic audience. To do otherwise, she writes, is a “disservice and betrayal to participants” and is indicative of yet another colonizing practice. pa rt i c i pat o r y a c t i o n r e s e a r c h

In this section, I illustrate ethical encounters relevant to the concepts of participation and action in two interconnected pa r projects with youth I have been involved in over the past decade: Intersecting Sites of Violence in the Lives of Girls in New Brunswick and Acting Out: Building Knowledge and Facilitating Action against Violence in the Lives of Youth. Although each project provides an opportunity for youth to contribute to knowledge about violence in young people’s lives from the points of view of young people themselves and to speak back to deficit discourses about youth, each is entangled in dominant discourses and practices. As Davies (2005, 5) says, in neoliberal regimes “we do not exist solely on one side or the other, but on both.” The Intersecting Sites project, explained in more detail elsewhere (Eyre 2007), involved university and high school–aged young women working as focus group facilitators, speaking with young women about violence in young women’s lives. In terms of participation, although academic researchers initiated and directed the research, we met with a community advisory group of adults and youth at the beginning, middle, and end of the project. Also, to conduct the research, we attempted to seek out young women researchers and focus group participants who represented diverse groups and different areas of the province, including communities such as urban, rural, and Indigenous. The youth researchers participated at each stage of the project, including the planning and preparation of the focus groups, conducting the research, analysis of the findings, and dissemination at local, regional, and national research conferences. Nevertheless, hierarchical relations threatened wider and more indepth participation. The project, for the most part, included adult and youth researchers who reflected white privilege, which became readily

31656_Clausen-black.indd 278

20-06-11 13:19



Ethics and Politics in Participatory Action Research with Youth 279

apparent when an Indigenous youth participant asked, “Why are there not more people like us here?” I was conscious of the young women who could not participate for reasons to do with the difficult conditions of their lives or for whom the project would be yet another form of surveillance. Also, the adult mentors and researchers were required by law to report any disclosure of child abuse to child protection authorities, which raises questions about under what circumstances promises of fostering non-hierarchical participatory relations should be abandoned. In addition, our funders required disclosure of personal information about the youth researchers, including their parents’ occupations, their mother’s level of education, their own economic situations, and whether the young women were mothers – all forms of surveillance irrelevant to the project. Furthermore, the funders expected the youth researchers to participate in promotional activities, including submitting personal photographs and autobiographical pieces for the project newsletter and website, which could be read as exploiting the young women and reflecting the demands of an individualistic, competitive, neoliberal research culture. In terms of social action, although the youth participated in conference presentations (e.g., Augustine et al. 2007), the only written publications that came out of the project were scholarly articles (e.g., Eyre and Murray 2014) written primarily for an academic audience. Promises of full participation with youth came up against our compressed time schedules and workloads as well as funding deadlines. Moreover, government funding cuts halted the project before further social action initiatives could take place. All of which raises questions about the ethics of exploitation, narrative authority, and who benefits from par with youth. The second project, Acting Out, included two separate arts-based initiatives, led by visual artist Deanna Musgrave and filmmaker Matthew Rogers. Each project involved par with marginalized youth who expressed their knowledge of violence in young people’s lives through painting and filmmaking, respectively. Musgrave held afterschool sessions about art-making with a group of newcomer young women while engaging in conversations about violence in the lives of youth, which for some participants meant conversing in a new language. The young women produced a large collage and a series of more than forty paintings expressing their feelings about violence in young women’s lives. Rogers engaged youth enrolled in an alternative education program in discussions about violence in young people’s

31656_Clausen-black.indd 279

20-06-11 13:19

280

Linda Eyre

lives, along with instruction on the principles and techniques of filmmaking. Under his guidance, students wrote scripts, performed, codirected, and co-produced a compilation of eight short films about violence, equity, and social justice, entitled Candle in the Dark (Rogers 2009). For Musgrave (2011) and Rogers (2010), ethical tensions around participation included making decisions about whether, how, and when to intervene in the youths’ arts-based work. Musgrave endeavoured to assist the young women in understanding the concept of violence through various art-making activities while not imposing a particular understanding of violence on their work. Rogers struggled with how to intervene in the students’ script-writing and filmmaking when he saw the work reiterating sexist and classist discourses and stereotypical images of youth that it was meant to challenge. For both artists, finding the right balance was difficult. Their desire to create a quality product that would have an impact on building knowledge about violence in the lives of youth rubbed against their desire for fostering non-hierarchical relations by allowing youth to create their own work without interference. With regard to social action, Musgrave showed the young women’s work at two public galleries in the city, and future exhibits at local schools are planned. Rogers organized a public showing of Candle in the Dark at a local cinema, attended by the students’ families and friends as well as educators and officials in the school district. The work has since been shown in schools around the province. Following each public event, the young people spoke to their respective audiences about the meaning the work held for them personally. Local press covered the openings, and they were well received. However, Musgrave and Rogers both acknowledge how public presentations, especially by marginalized youth on issues of violence, whatever the medium, risk reinforcing dominant deficit narratives about youth, with possible long-term consequences for those involved. For safety reasons and to protect the young people’s anonymity, Musgrave and Rogers each decided not to include participants’ names in the gallery exhibition and film credits. Unfortunately, a local newspaper reporter revealed the names of the young women in Musgrave’s project, which resulted in someone stalking one of the artists on social media. For Rogers, despite teachers’ requests for copies of the film to show to their classes, he chooses to show the work only when he and preferably at least one

31656_Clausen-black.indd 280

20-06-11 13:19



Ethics and Politics in Participatory Action Research with Youth 281

of the youth filmmakers are present. For Rogers, the work must be “carefully taught.” The Acting Out project also raised other ethical dilemmas around participation and action. For Musgrave (2011), participatory artmaking on issues of violence, in her words, positioned her somewhere between “therapist and educator,” at times felt “exploitative and manipulative,” and “was a lot to ask of these girls.” Rogers (2010, 107) raised concerns about how audiences’ assumptions and responses, if left unquestioned, might trivialize the work or reiterate discourses of marginalized youth as violent and dangerous. As one student remarked in response to an audience member who intimated that the filmmaking project was especially good for this group of students, “they must think we are all thugs.” Further, a long-term commitment to accompany the projects and engage with audiences as the works travel around the province may be difficult to sustain and impossible to control when a project continues to travel digitally through social media, YouTube, or school district and gallery websites. Yet, as Musgrave and Rogers point out, to abandon the projects for these reasons seems disrespectful of students’ work and reflects patronizing and condescending assumptions about youth agency and audiences’ abilities to engage critically with the work. In considering the future of par with youth in education contexts, the following overarching ethical questions expanded from a previous paper (Eyre 2008) remain relevant: Who benefits from pa r with youth? Whose interests are served? How do we shift historical colonial research practices? What are the wider moral and social responsibilities of pa r inquiry with youth? What role do youth play in pa r projects? In conducting future research: Who is invited to participate? Who is left out? How do we avoid tokenism or essentializing discourses of youth? How do we respond to questions of positionality, voice, narrative authority, representation, and ownership? How do we foster care and mutual trust from the beginning of a project to the sharing of work with others? How do we avoid reiterating deficit discourses of youth and instead turn the gaze back on the social, educational, and political systems? And afterwards: How do we take responsibility for any consequences that may result when working with youth researchers? What happens when the research activities are over and youth go back to their everyday lives? And, importantly: What positive difference have we made to the lives of youth, especially

31656_Clausen-black.indd 281

20-06-11 13:19

282

Linda Eyre

youth who are marginalized? As mentioned earlier, my point is not to prescribe solutions to the complex ethical questions in pa r with youth in neoliberal regimes – a context that is always shifting and requires continual vigilance. Many of the ethical concerns raised around participation and action became evident during, not prior to, the individual projects. As the Intersecting Sites and Acting Out projects continue, new ethical tensions will no doubt arise, requiring an ethical response.1 In this chapter, I have attempted to illustrate the ethical complexities of par, drawing on critical and feminist leaders in the field and my involvement with par projects with youth in education contexts. An ethical future direction for par with youth in education that furthers equity, social justice, and social transformation lies not with prescriptive rules and regulations; rather, it begins with a community of scholars who engage in ongoing conversations about how best to demonstrate care, protect participants from harm, and act in culturally appropriate, ethically responsible ways. In closing, when we look toward the future of par in education, an adaptation of Patti Lather’s (2010, 80) words is fitting: “These are messier, trickier, less comforting stories than we are used to. Perhaps the something that begins to take shape across these examples is some new ‘line of flight’ … where we are not so sure of ourselves and where we see this not knowing as our best chance for a different sort of doing in the name of [participatory action] research.”

note

  1 Intersecting Sites is a project of the Muriel McQueen Fergusson Centre for Family Violence Research, University of New Brunswick and the Alliance of Family Violence Research Centres. pi: Helene Berman. Acting Out is a project of the Muriel McQueen Fergusson Centre for Family Violence Research, University of New Brunswick. pi: Linda Eyre and Rina Arseneault. references

Apple, Michael W. 2006. Educating the “Right” Way: Markets, Standards, God and Inequality. New York, n y: Routledge.

31656_Clausen-black.indd 282

20-06-11 13:19



Ethics and Politics in Participatory Action Research with Youth 283

Augustine, Robin, Terrilyn Bartibogue, Anne Marie Driscoll, Carrie Knockwood, and Mulliann Levy. 2007. “Violence in Girls’ Lives.” Presentation to Elsipogtog Health and Wellness Centre, Elsipogtog, nb , May. Barone, Tom, and Elliot W. Eisner. 2012. Arts Based Research. Thousand Oaks, c a: Sage. Battiste, Marie. 1998. Decolonizing the University: Ethical Guidelines for Research Involving Indigenous Populations. Canadian Society for the Study of Education, Congress of the Social Sciences and Humanities, Ottawa, on , May. – 2013. Decolonizing Education: Nourishing the Learning Spirit. Saskatoon, s k: Purich. Beaton, Brian, and Penny Carpenter. 2016. “Creating Appropriate Participatory Action Research with Remote First Nations.” Antistasis 5(2), 50–61. Berge, Britt-Marie, and Hildur Ve. 2000. Action Research for Gender Equity. Buckingham, UK: Open University Press. Blum-Ross, Alicia. 2013. “Authentic Representations? Ethical Quandaries in Participatory Filmmaking with Young People.” In Negotiating Ethical Challenges in Youth Research, edited by Kitty te Riele and Rachel Brooks, 55–68. New York n y: Routledge. Britzman, Deborah. 1995. “Is There a Queer Pedagogy? Or Stop Reading Straight.” Educational Theory 45(2), 151–65. Brown, Tony, and Liz Jones. 2001. Action Research and Postmodernism: Congruence and Critique. Buckingham, UK: Open University Press. Call-Cummings, Megan, and Sylvia Martinez. 2016. “Consciousness Raising or Unintentionally Oppressive?” The Qualitative Report 21(5), 798–810. Cammarota, Julio, and Michelle Fine. 2008. “Youth Participatory Action Research: A Pedagogy for Transformational Resistance.” In Revolutionizing Education: Youth Participatory Action Research in Motion, edited by Julio Cammarota and Michelle Fine, 1–11. New York, ny: Routledge. Code, Lorraine, Maureen Ford, Kathleen Martindale, Susan Sherwin, and Debra Shogan. 1991. Is Feminist Ethics Possible? The c r iaw Papers, no. 27. Ottawa, on : Canadian Research Institute for the Advancement of Women. Davies, Bronwyn. 2005. “The (Im)possibility of Intellectual Work in Neoliberal Regimes.” Discourse: Studies in the Cultural Politics of Education, 26(1), 1–14.

31656_Clausen-black.indd 283

20-06-11 13:19

284

Linda Eyre

Dean, Amber. 2015. “Colonialism, Neoliberalism, and UniversityCommunity Engagement: What Sorts of Encounters with Difference Are Our Institutions Prioritizing.” In Unravelling Encounters: Ethics, Knowledge and Resistance under Neoliberalism, edited by Caitlin Janzen, Donna Jeffrey, and Kristen Smith, 175–94. Waterloo, on: Wilfrid Laurier University Press. Dolby, Nadine. 2016. “Seeing the World Anew: The Lessons of Qualitative Research.” Teachers College Record, 15 February. Dumas, Michael. 2013. “‘Waiting for Superman’ to Save Black People: Racial Representation and the Official Antiracism of Neoliberal School Reform.” Discourse: Studies in the Cultural Politics of Education 34(4), 531–47. Eyre, Linda. 2002. “‘No Strings Attached’? Corporate Involvement in Curriculum.” Canadian Journal of Education 27(1), 61–80. – 2007. “Whose Ethics? Whose Interests? The Tri-Council Policy and Feminist Research.” Journal of Curriculum Theorizing 26(3), 75–85. – 2008. “Research on/with/for Youth? A Critical Reflexive Look at the Limits and Possibilities of Peer Research in Creating a Context for Education, Resistance and Agency in Young Women’s Lives.” In Fostering Critical Dialogues in Gender Studies and Youth Studies in Education, edited by Lisa Loutzenheizer and Deirdre Kelly, 49–60. Proceedings of the casw e 7th Biennial Institute, 4 June, ub c , Vancouver, bc. Eyre, Linda, and Deborah Murray. 2014. “Intersecting Sites of Violence in Girls’ Lives in New Brunswick: ‘Violence can be everywhere and you won’t necessarily see it.’” In Faces of Violence in the Lives of Girls, edited by Helene Berman and Yasmin Jiwany, 137–58. London, on: Althouse Press. Fine, Michelle. 2008. “An Epilogue, of Sorts.” In Revolutionizing Education: Youth Participatory Action Research in Motion, edited by Julio Cammarota and Michelle Fine, 213–34. New York, ny: Routledge. Gale, Trevor, and Kathleen Densmore. 2003. Engaging Teachers toward a Radical Democratic Agenda for Schooling. Berkshire, UK: Open University Press. Gardner, Morgan, Linda Brown, Elizabeth Young, Allie Young, Ann McCann, and Myles Carol. 2016. “Feeling like Research Partners as a YouthAdult Team.” The Canadian Journal of Action Research 17(3), 20–38. Greenwood, Davydd J., and Morten Levin. 2007. Introduction to Action Research: Social Research for Social Change. Thousand Oaks, c a : Sage.

31656_Clausen-black.indd 284

20-06-11 13:19



Ethics and Politics in Participatory Action Research with Youth 285

Griffiths, Morwenna. 1998. Educational Research for Social Justice: Getting off the Fence. Buckingham, UK: Open University Press. Guishard, Monique, and Eve Tuck. 2014. “Youth Resistance Research Methods and Ethical Challenges.” In Youth Resistance and Theories of Change, edited by Eve Tuck and K. Wayne Yang, 181–94. New York, ny: Routledge. Hall, Stuart. 1990. “Cultural Identity and Diaspora.” In Identity: Community, Culture, Difference, edited by Jonathan Rutherford, 222–37. London, UK: Lawrence and Wishart. Harris, Anne, and Christine Sinclair. 2014. Critical Plays: Embodied Research for Social Change. Rotterdam, Netherlands: Sense Publishers. Janzen, Caitlin, Donna Jeffrey, and Kristen Smith. 2015. “Encounters with Difference in a Neoliberal Context.” In Unravelling Encounters: Ethics, Knowledge and Resistance under Neoliberalism, edited by Caitlin Janzen, Donna Jeffrey, and Kristen Smith, 1–19. Waterloo, on: Wilfrid Laurier University Press. Jordan, Steven, and Dip Kapoor. 2016. “Re-Politicizing Participatory Action Research: Unmasking Neoliberalism and the Illusions of Participation.” Educational Action Research 24(1). doi:10.1080/096507 92.2015.1105145. Kemmis, Stephen, and Robin McTaggart. 2005. “Participatory Action Research: Communicative Action and the Public Sphere.” In The sage Handbook of Qualitative Research (3rd ed.), edited by Norman K. Denzin and Yvonna S. Lincoln, 559–603. London, UK: Sage. Kirby, Sandra L., Lorraine Greaves, and Colleen Reid. 2010. Experience Research Social Change: Methods beyond the Mainstream (2nd ed.). Toronto on : University of Toronto Press. Knowles, Gary J., and Ardra L. Cole. 2008. Handbook of the Arts in Qualitative Research. London, UK: Sage. Lather, Patti. 2010. Engaging Science: Policy from the Side of the Messy. New York, n y: Peter Lang. Loutzenheiser, Lisa W. 2007. “Working Alterity: The Impossibility of Ethical Research with Youth.” Educational Studies: A Journal of the American Educational Research Association 41(2), 109–27. Love, Kevin. 2012. Ethics in Social Research. Bingley, UK: Emerald Group. Lowman, Emma Battell, and Adam J. Barker. 2015. Settler: Identity and Colonialism in 21st Century Canada. Halifax, ns: Fernwood. Mitchell, Claudia. 2011. Doing Visual Research. Thousand Oaks, c a : Sage.

31656_Clausen-black.indd 285

20-06-11 13:19

286

Linda Eyre

Musgrave, Deanna. 2011. “Catharsis, Empathy, and Polemic Art: Fine Lines in Creating Social Change through Art.” Canadian Women’s Studies Association, Congress of the Social Sciences and Humanities, University of New Brunswick, Fredericton, nb , 3 1 May. Peterat, Linda, and M. Gale Smith. 2001. In-Forming Practice through Action Research. Peoria, i l: Glencoe/McGraw-Hill. Pink, Sarah. 2007. Doing Visual Ethnography (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, c a : Sage. Richardson, Laurel. 1997. Fields of Play: Constructing an Academic Life. New Brunswick, n j: Rutgers University Press. Richardson, Laurel, and Elizabeth Adams St Pierre. 2005. “Writing: A Method of Inquiry.” In The sage Handbook of Qualitative Research (3rd ed.), edited by Norman K. Denzin and Yvonna S. Lincoln, 959–78. London, UK: Sage. Rogers, Matthew. 2009. Candle in the Dark. Motion picture limited release. Muriel McQueen Fergusson Centre for Family Violence Research, University of New Brunswick, Fredericton, nb , Canada. (In collaboration with students from School District 18, nb .) – 2010. “Critical Filmmaking Pedagogies: A Disruptive Praxis?” Unpublished m ed thesis, University of New Brunswick. Rollock, Nicola. 2013. “A Political Investment: Revisiting Race and Racism in the Research Process.” Discourse: Studies in the Cultural Politics of Education 34(4), 492–509. Rose, Sherry. 2012. “Putting Narrative Documentation to Work: A Search for Educational Abundance.” Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of New Brunswick. Sinding, Christine, Ross Gray, and Jeff Nisker. 2008. “Ethical Issues and Issues of Ethics.” In Handbook of the Arts in Qualitative Research, edited by J. Gary Knowles and Ardra L. Cole, 459–68. London, UK: Sage. Smith, Linda Tuhiwai. 2012. Decolonizing Methodologies: Research and Indigenous Peoples (2nd ed.). London, UK: Zed Books. Strega, Susan, and Leslie Brown. 2015. Research as Resistance: Revisiting Critical, Indigenous, and Anti-Oppressive Approaches (2nd ed.). Toronto, on : Canadian Scholars’ Press. te Riele, Kitty, and Rachel Brooks. 2013. Negotiating Ethical Challenges in Youth Research. New York, n y: Routledge. Tuck, Eve, and K. Wayne Yang (Eds). 2014. “Thinking with Youth about Theories of Change.” In Youth Resistance and Theories of Change, edited by E. Tuck and K.W. Yang, 125–38. New York, ny: Routledge.

31656_Clausen-black.indd 286

20-06-11 13:19



Ethics and Politics in Participatory Action Research with Youth 287

Van den Hoonaard, Will. 2002. Walking the Tightrope: Ethical Issues for Qualitative Researchers. Toronto, on : University of Toronto Press. Walsh, Lucas, Rosalyn Black, and Naomi Berman. 2013. “Walking the Talk: Youth Research in Hard Times.” In Negotiating Ethical Challenges in Youth Research, edited by Kitty te Riele and Rachel Brooks, 43–54. New York, n y: Routledge. Welton, Anjale D., and Sarah Diem. 2016. “Who Will Be ‘My Brother’s Keeper?’ The Problematic Nature of Using a Color-Blind Approach to Address Racial Inequities.” Teachers College Record, 15 February. id Number: 19455.

31656_Clausen-black.indd 287

20-06-11 13:19

16 Challenges to Equity-Based Teacher Education Initiatives Practicum Dilemmas of Teacher Candidates Manu Sharma

introduction

This chapter is based on a larger Canadian critical practitioner research study (Sharma 2013) that examined an equity-based teacher education initiative: Diverse Schools (d s ) Initiative.1 In this chapter, the d s Initiative is explored through the lens of teacher candidate participants with respect to the challenges produced in the application of culturally responsive and relevant pedagogy (crrp ) in practicum placements. The teacher candidates’ insights from the data collected were then shared with the ds Initiative founders/instructors to help redesign the d s Initiative for the following year. Thus, the action research that came out of this practitioner research study contributes to the field of teacher education by examining how such an equitybased initiative can become more meaningful for teacher candidates and have a greater impact in our public schools. The hope of this chapter is to inspire reflective practice on equity-based teacher education initiatives such as the ds Initiative with a goal of creating better designed and more meaningful equitable schooling experiences for all students in public schools. context of study: examining an equity-based i n i t i at i v e i n t e a c h e r e d u c at i o n

The purpose behind developing the ds initiative was to orchestrate a collaborative partnership between the public school board and the

31656_Clausen-black.indd 288

20-06-11 13:19



Challenges to Equity-Based Teacher Education Initiatives 289

university within the context of a bachelor of education program. This partnership was privately funded and was established with the aim of facilitating a common equity-based theory and practice approach – namely, culturally responsive and relevant pedagogy to practicum placements between teacher candidates and their respective associate teachers. This ds Initiative’s participants were selected based on two things: 1) the list of ten associate teachers who volunteered to be in the ds Initiative and 2) the corresponding teacher candidates assigned to the associate teachers who volunteered to be in the d s Initiative. Ryan and Lina were the co-founders of the d s Initiative and were also responsible for delivering this d s Initiative in a Canadian bachelor of education program. As a result, they taught seventy teacher candidates in a course entitled School and Society, which for ten teacher candidates was also a part of their ds Initiative. Beyond teaching in the bachelor of education program, Ryan and Lina instructed and facilitated professional learning seminars for associate teachers who volunteered to be in the d s Initiative. Thus, to provide the same theoretical understanding of crrp, the associate teachers were provided with release time from their schools to come to the university and learn from Ryan and Lina. It is important to note that beyond the ten associate teachers who were paired with the selected teacher candidates, there were other associate teachers who attended the professional development seminars. However, the data examined in this chapter are based only on the ten corresponding associate teachers. The ten teacher candidates attached to these participating associate teachers were also taught about culturally responsive and relevant pedagogy as part of their required course, School and Society, taught by Ryan and Lina. It was a year-long course, consisting of twenty-four classes, each of which was three hours in length. The release time for associate teachers was three hours in length for each of the six professional development seminars. It is important to note that this d s Initiative also created two opportunities for the teacher candidates and the associate teachers to meet together for collaborative discussions on using crrp during the practicum, bringing the total professional development seminars to eight. This meant that the ds Initiative had consistency between those who envisioned and created the ds Initiative and those who delivered it to the selected ten teacher candidates and ten associate teachers, allowing for a more controlled information dissemination delivery. To understand the ds Initiative’s focus on culturally responsive and relevant pedagogy, it is important to acknowledge how it emerged.

31656_Clausen-black.indd 289

20-06-11 13:19

290

Manu Sharma

When Ryan and Lina were asked how crrp emerged given that such a theory did not exist in current educational literature, they explained that c r r p was the infusion of two different pedagogical theories – namely, culturally responsive teaching and culturally relevant pedagogy. In addition, Ryan and Lina explained that putting these two theories together meant that they shared a common vision of addressing diverse student populations. However, upon reviewing the literature on both theories, culturally responsive teaching (Gay 2002) and culturally relevant pedagogy (Ladson-Billings 1995a; 1995b), there were marked differences between the approaches and the application of each theory (Sharma 2013). my perspective: critical pedagogy theoretical framework

As a critical practitioner researcher, I used a critical pedagogy–based theoretical framework to explore and analyze the ds Initiative. Critical pedagogy allows one the ability to grapple with questions of inequity, to understand the political dynamics of society and how power and social class affect daily life, and to gain a holistic view of the oppressive cycle that many racialized and marginalized people encounter. I find my definition of critical pedagogy to be most closely aligned with those of Joe Kincheloe (1999), Henry Giroux (1992), and Christine Sleeter, Myriam Torres, and Peggy Laughlin (2004) – all of these scholars’ works are heavily influenced by the work of Paulo Freire (2001). In his book Pedagogy of the Oppressed (1970), Freire coins the term conscientization to explain how different stakeholders in education (i.e., the participants) are on a journey that allows them to deepen their understanding regardless of where they are on that journey. Sleeter, Torres, and Laughlin (2004) state that conscientization is another way to do reflexive practice as a teacher, to go deep into acknowledging a teacher’s reality and then intentionally reflect on it to make a change/ intervention or create a possible new dialogue in the hope of providing next steps to improve those lived realities. This reflexive work is a strong indication of practitioner research that aims to give back to our public school students and schools. In this iteration, then, critical pedagogy would support an overwhelming and intense process of self-recognition and challenging of the societal inequities, which may be exhausting but is necessary for creating change. It is essential that not only educators but their

31656_Clausen-black.indd 290

20-06-11 13:19



Challenges to Equity-Based Teacher Education Initiatives 291

students question the “norm,” “normal,” or “dominant” discourses that those students experience on a daily basis. Here, the role of the “liberating educator [is to] prepare materials, frameworks, and the environment to facilitate critical dialogue among students, to decode their reality and unveil the myths about such reality” (Sleeter, Torres, and Laughlin 2004, 84). However, in order to become “liberating educators,” teacher candidates must be aware of their own investments in teaching and must consciously design how they plan to teach in order to support the students to empower themselves. Thus, making practitioner research “a central commitment to the study of one’s own professional practice by the researcher himself or herself, with a view to improving that practice for the benefit of others” (Dadds, Hart, and Crotty 2001, 7). Moreover, according to Sleeter, Torres, and Laughlin (2004), scaffolding, learning to question, modelling, and creating support systems are important steps in using an inquiry-based approach to teacher education. If an inquiry-based approach is informed and framed by critical questions about power, privilege, and race, then it can be claimed that such an inquiry approach is a critical pedagogical approach. Sleeter, Torres, and Laughlin argue that “teachers of historically marginalized students need to teach them the culture of power; they cannot just let the students construct whatever they want without guiding them toward understanding both the culture of power and their own cultural experiences” (2004, 92). In other words, critical pedagogical efforts need to ensure that critical questions about the dominant culture are asked, which in turn will mobilize students to move outside their comfort zones to learn and explore questions on their own. As a result, the process of aiming to gain a critical understanding is simultaneously challenging and hopeful. This practitioner research study has been done in hopes of creating a space in which critical understanding can be developed, fostered, and deepened with respect to creating and delivering rich equity initiatives in teacher education programs. methodology: practitioner research

The larger Canadian research study from which this chapter emerges has a critical practitioner research methodology (Sharma 2013). The understanding of critical practitioner research in this chapter is made up of practitioner research (a form of action research) while using a

31656_Clausen-black.indd 291

20-06-11 13:19

292

Manu Sharma

critical pedagogy theoretical framework when collecting and analyzing the data. To be more precise, the practitioner research is done on a structural level focusing on a teacher education initiative, the d s Initiative. As a critical practitioner researcher, I examined this equitybased teacher education initiative by hearing and observing the experiences of teacher candidates, associate teachers, principals involved, and the developers of the program. However, for the purposes of this chapter, I focus on what next steps came out of the data collected on and from teacher candidates who participated in this study. The action component of practitioner research was done in two parts: 1) knowledge mobilization of crrp by the developers of the d s Initiative in hopes of creating reflexive teacher candidates to improve diverse students’ experiences in urban schools and 2) sharing the analyzed data of teacher candidates with the developers of the ds Initiative with an understanding that it would be used to formulate the following year’s revised d s Initiative. Greenbank (2003) states that practitioner research is reflexive because it allows teacher candidates to use their own interpretations to understand situations that they are examining. These opportunities were afforded to teacher candidates as they participated in semi-structured interviews with me. The open-ended questions were reflective and reflexive and thus often made them stop, pause, and think before responding. Through the interview process, I learned that knowledge mobilization and practitioner research can work together to provide possible reflexive opportunities to associate teachers and teacher candidates as presented in the case of the ds Initiative. Even though the teacher candidates did not highlight the difficulties or the problem they wished to address by using action research practices, the knowledge mobilization gave them a base in theory, which they then reflected upon with respect to its impact on them, their students in practicum, and how, if at all, the ds Initiative could help to improve teacher education programs. Thus, it can be argued that the overall goals of knowledge mobilization and participatory action research are similar, as described in the chart below, which was created by Michael Ungar, Patrick McGrath, David Black, Ingrid Sketris, Shelley Whitman, and Linda Liebenberg (2015). Thus, doing this particular critical practitioner research on teacher candidates’ experiences in the ds Initiative helped to fulfill one of the aims of practitioner research: “alter relationships of knowledge, practice, and power in universities and to rethink hierarchical connections

31656_Clausen-black.indd 292

20-06-11 13:19



Challenges to Equity-Based Teacher Education Initiatives 293

Table 16.1 Goals of knowledge mobilization and participatory action research

Dimension

Knowledge mobilization

Overall goal To ensure the transfer and integration of knowledge between actors; knowledge exchange to inform clinical practice, programs and policies.

Participatory [and] action research To advance/acquire knowledge that will have a practical advantage to participants; knowledge to action; seek multiple levels of influence – individual, organizational and across community.

Source: Ungar et al. (2015), Table 1, 607.

between teaching and research” (Cochran-Smith and Lytle 2009, 29). In other words, this practitioner research helped to challenge a university’s long-standing traditions that often privileges academic research and deems teaching as a “service” component for faculty to participate in. However, in the teacher candidates’ interviews, it was demonstrated by the critical questioning of the theory and practice dichotomy that there were many complexities embedded in this dichotomy and its implications for public school and university settings. Furthermore, because of the structure of the university and the power dynamics therein, teacher education programs are often left in a blurred haze without teacher candidates having the opportunity to do practitioner research that ultimately helps to improve the teacher education program. The d s Initiative is an example of an opportunity that provides a thread that brings the university and school settings into a dialogue interwoven with equity concerns about power and privilege. CochranSmith and Lytle note that “in the university context, blurring boundaries and roles allows for innovative programs of research and new kinds of knowledge as well as new tensions and professional dilemmas” (2009, 43). These professional dilemmas and tensions were brought forth in the narratives provided by research participants during interviews and in field notes. Cochran-Smith and Lytle (2009) contend that teacher candidates who are placed in classrooms for their practicum are “legitimate knowers and knowledge generators” and should be seen as autonomous and reflexive practitioners. Thus, practitioner research taking place at a university challenges notions of traditional knowledge and

31656_Clausen-black.indd 293

20-06-11 13:19

294

Manu Sharma

who exactly is generating this knowledge. More specifically, when practitioner research based on teacher education programs is developed, it challenges the hegemony of expert knowledge that filters through a transmissive and directed method of knowledge dissemination (Cochran-Smith and Lytle 1993). In this study, the analysis of the ds Initiative invites and creates a space for teacher candidates’ voices to be heard and valued. A key component of practitioner research is “not [to] be delivered through mere talk, but instead should be coconstructed through engagement in living the process of problem posing in the teacher education classroom” (Souto-Manning 2012, 54), thus allowing for a richer understanding and more meaningful application opportunities in public schools. Allowing practitioner research to be practised in teacher education programs through processes of inquiry, reflection, and questioning creates issues and tensions that are at once productive and disruptive at the university and, in turn, are essential to interrupt the traditional hierarchy of knowledge. In the words of Cochran-Smith and Lytle (2009), “Teacher researchers work in inquiry communities to examine their own assumptions, develop local knowledge by posing questions and gathering data, and in many versions of teacher research work for social justice by using inquiry to assure educational opportunity, access, and equity for all students” (39–40). And I believe the inquiry opportunities that emerged from this research on the d s Initiative allowed these disruptive moments to create productive tensions that were in turn offered to the developers of the d s Initiative to help improve it for the following year, thus making this critical practitioner research study a contributing factor in catalyzing change in traditional equity-based teacher education initiatives. methods

This critical practitioner research study was based on an eight-month study. The data collection consisted of field notes and critical reflections I wrote: for eight School and Society classes that lasted three hours each; for six crrp seminars with associate teachers (each lasting three hours); and for two joint seminars attended by teacher candidates and their respective associate teachers (also lasting three hours each). In addition to the field notes and critical reflections, I transcribed interviews and kept reflection notes on eighteen semi-structured interviews; ten of these interviews were with teacher candidates, and eight

31656_Clausen-black.indd 294

20-06-11 13:19



Challenges to Equity-Based Teacher Education Initiatives 295

were with their associate teachers,2 each interview lasting approximately one hour. All preliminary findings were shared with Ryan and Lina for catalytic validity and opportunity for constructive anonymous feedback. For the purposes of this chapter, only the following research question will be examined: What were the challenges, insights, and possibilities that teacher candidates and associate teachers experienced during their practicum placements after having been exposed to the ds Initiative? In the following section, interview excerpts are shared and from them the suggestions for improving the d s Initiative that were given to the developers of the d s Initiative are presented. t e a c h e r c a n d i d at e s ’ c h a l l e n g e s with implementing crrp and suggestions f o r   n e x t d s i n i t i at i v e

Through the analysis of the teacher candidates’ narratives, this study creates a dynamic space to uncover and discover the complexity involved in equity-based teacher education initiatives. In particular, this practitioner study suggests that there is need for a more nuanced approach to the following three challenges that emerged out of the data analysis of teacher candidate interviews: 1) understanding teacher candidate identity; 2) teacher candidate insights on experiences with disengaged students; and 3) teacher candidate and associate teacher power dynamics in a university-school–based partnership. Because of the limited length of this chapter, one example from interview data collected on each of these three challenges will be shared. Teacher Candidate Identity Throughout several teacher candidates’ interview transcripts there was an overwhelming indication that they felt as though their racial identities and life experiences were left out of the classes and joint seminars on c r r p. For example, Kathleen experienced a crisis that she took with her after her placement ended. She said that her students’ behaviours affected how each day flowed and that all those emotions went home with her every night: “the student with the most extreme behaviour only came during the morning … so, I tried to create a situation in which they could succeed. The kids were expected to come in and put their coats away and have a seat on their section of the carpet. Progressively, this routine for that particular child became challenging;

31656_Clausen-black.indd 295

20-06-11 13:19

296

Manu Sharma

there was nowhere to put him on the carpet without putting other kids at risk. So we started putting him at the back of the classroom.3 The challenge of balancing other students’ safety and learning with the student’s right to be in the class was very difficult. I really valued the transparency of my associate teacher about this particular student’s situation” (Kathleen interview 2011, 4). Kathleen recognized that she was in a challenging situation. She did not wish to fall into the trap of deficit thinking and labelling a child, but she needed to address the violent behaviours the child displayed. Asking for advice on the matter, Kathleen was told that she had to be more firm; however, she felt she was “being as firm as [she] could be without picking up a child or yelling” (Kathleen interview 2011, 5). She wanted the child to understand that she was there with no intent to punish him but rather to teach him and she wished he could trust her. Unfortunately, one day the child physically attacked her, and as a result he was brought to her to apologize, but he chose not to and responded negatively instead: “At one point the student had physically attacked me and he was brought by my associate teacher to me to apologize. She reminded him that I was an adult and I needed to be respected. But the student responded and said, ‘Yeah, but she is not really the same.’ And then my associate teacher said ‘Just because she is a student teacher … she is still an adult.’ Then he said, ‘No that is not what I mean, it is because she is white’” (Kathleen interview 2011, 5). The kindergarten student’s comments deeply affected Kathleen as she realized the impact of race and power the child was struggling with (i.e., he was very young, had no authority in the situation, and came from a racialized and marginalized background). The impact of white racial identity in an urban school setting was not explicitly discussed in the School and Society classroom or during the shared seminars in which the associate teacher and teacher candidate were both present. There were readings on white privilege, but the teacher candidate felt that there were no opportunities to discuss the potential challenges and impacts her personal racial identity might cause in these practicum experiences. She struggled with the idea of her racial identity as being white; she never saw it as being problematic and was shocked to hear a student call her out on it. Thus, as a result, there seemed to be an oversight on how the ds Initiative prepared Kathleen to struggle with her personal identity in relation to providing culturally responsive and relevant pedagogy–based lesson in an urban school setting. Perhaps there was an urgency to focus on the theory and have

31656_Clausen-black.indd 296

20-06-11 13:19



Challenges to Equity-Based Teacher Education Initiatives 297

it applied to support racialized students in urban schools; however, this missed opportunity to unpack teacher candidates’ identities and have discussions on their whiteness caused a great deal of distress for many of the teacher candidates in the d s Initiative. Thus, the idea of including discussion around teacher candidate identity on a personal level, and in particular to unpack the racial identity of being white, was suggested to Ryan and Lina for improving the d s Initiative for the following year. Teacher Candidate Insights on Experiences with Disengaged Students The second challenge often referred to in the semi-structured interviews with teacher candidates was that the ds Initiative’s crrp theory did not explain how to engage disengaged students. In particular, several teacher candidates asked what to do with a student who is labelled as “behavioural” and has a strict Individual Educational Plan (iep). Entering Toronto District School Board classrooms for the first time, many teacher candidates encountered the challenges of learning how to implement pre-determined classroom management routines that might have not been conducive to the idea of crrp being used for engaging all students. The following are the perspectives voiced by teacher candidates on teacher candidate’s classroom management strategies, which were discussed by their associate teachers. Alexandra, a teacher candidate, had difficulties encouraging her class to complete work because students withdrew from completing classwork and participating in class discussion despite her efforts to offer extra help using crrp strategies of making their learning experience relevant to their own lives. Alexandra claimed that there were a few students with behavioural issues in her class, and they made her job sometimes very difficult, even when she tried to help them after school. The question that emerges from such an observation is: How does c r r p, an equity-based pedagogy, address “behavioural” students? If crrp does not address “difficult” students, then how can it benefit the diverse needs of racialized students? How does an educator interject with crrp-based lessons when the students are not listening to the teacher or hearing the lesson?4 Alexandra reported that she did not have the training for dealing with this lack of motivation to do work that some students displayed. Moreover, when Alexandra got to know the students better, she

31656_Clausen-black.indd 297

20-06-11 13:19

298

Manu Sharma

realized the potential of one particular boy whom she defended against getting a behavioural label. Unfortunately, the administration at that school did not provide a time or a date to meet with her and the classroom teacher with regard to the student’s behaviour; rather, the student was spoken about as a “behavioural minority boy” who needed an iep. Thus, questions lingered in Alexandra’s mind, such as if there is no communication between administration and the classroom teachers, then on what variables is the student being “identified” as behavioural? Thus, her concern around engaging students who had been labelled as behavioural because of their unsafe behaviour demonstrated in the classroom in crrp lessons was brought to the attention of Ryan and Lina. The goal for the next year of this equity-based initiative is to address how it prepares teacher candidates to find ways of including students who have already been excluded and distrust the school system. How does a teacher candidate engage those who have been isolated in the classroom in crrp lessons that require all students to trust and be open to sharing about their home life and personal culture? Teacher Candidate and Associate Teacher Power Dynamics in a University-School Partnership The third challenge that emerged from the teacher candidate narratives is the role that power has in the delivery of equity-based teacher education. There is the obvious power difference in the associate teacher being more experienced in teaching and the evaluator of the teacher candidate, who often has less experience in teaching. Moreover, there are power differences in the school climate in which practicums occurs. To be more precise, the power dynamics among different staff members in every school seemed to vary; many teacher candidates in this study did not mention them, and the few who did claimed that they were frustrated by them. Abigail claimed that the principal was rude to the all-female staff during an after-school meeting, and she felt that nothing could be said in response. According to Abigail, “It was hard to make a relationship with the principal as assumptions were prematurely made about us, teacher candidates. There was a clear divide between the principal and the other teachers” (Abigail interview 2010, 4). Although this was not directly an issue that the d s Initiative set out to address, it deeply affected the collaborative work that the associate teacher and teacher

31656_Clausen-black.indd 298

20-06-11 13:19



Challenges to Equity-Based Teacher Education Initiatives 299

candidate could do, which was a central part of the ds Initiative. More precisely, if the ds Initiative’s core theory of crrp was to be implemented by the teacher candidate and the associate teacher, the principal would need to sign off and provide support for it. Without the principal’s support, the initiative comes to a standstill, which was the case in Abigail’s practicum experience. The unequal distribution of power in schools has a significant impact on what equity-based initiatives can take place within a classroom. What happens when the administrator does not communicate or work with the staff? How is an uncooperative or unhealthy structure within the staff community going to affect the daily experiences of the staff, the teacher candidate, and the students who live in this school culture? Other teacher candidates had similar experiences with staff in their schools. As a result, these questions were shared with Ryan and Lina to develop an awareness among school administrators who are not supportive of the d s Initiative. Based on these insights, it was suggested to Ryan and Lina that next year’s d s Initiative that requires the partnership of the school must ensure that the school administrator is on board with supporting the initiative and is willing to create collaborative relations with the teachers and teacher candidates involved in it. Conclusion We as teacher educators must practise embracing the pedagogies we share with our associate teachers and teacher candidates by using them in our daily teaching (Souto-Manning 2012). Moreover, the participants’ narratives reveal the importance and significance of acknowledging, embracing, and using their lived experiences and identity when engaging in an equity initiative that is formulated on the premise of diverse identities. In addition, recognizing different student behaviours that need to be addressed in classroom settings while implementing c r r p is necessary so that the class lessons can be delivered. Finally, recognizing the power imbalances in university-school–based partnerships is important because they can be affected by the willingness of the administrators of the schools, and thus the level of impact an equity initiative may have can be limited. Thus, teacher educators who organize and participate in designing equity initiatives need to ensure that the cooperation from the school is mutual. To make this d s Initiative more meaningful and culturally relevant and responsive to

31656_Clausen-black.indd 299

20-06-11 13:19

300

Manu Sharma

the teacher candidates involved in it, there needs to be engagement of the lived experiences and racial identities they embody. In conclusion, even though teacher candidates enjoy receiving the knowledge of crrp, it is important to acknowledge that in order to understand and apply this knowledge and be true participants in a ds Initiative, they must be invited to become involved in the process of defining crrp for them, posing critical questions such as those relayed in the three main challenges shared above and, finally, being part of redesigning or re-evaluating the ds Initiative at the same time as they are participating in it. s i g n i f i c a n c e o f t h e d s i n i t i at i v e a n d f u t u r e directions of canadian practitioner research i n   t e a c h e r e d u c at i o n

One of the main goals of the ds Initiative was to increase dialogue around equitable schooling practices by using crrp-based practices. In Canada, we have made some progress in identifying the achievement gap in our public schools and have begun doing some equitybased work around it; however, we cannot allow neoliberal practices such as standardized tests become the only measure of social reform. According to Arnold et al. (1991), a liberal political approach to education “[e]mphasizes individualism and some measure of social reform, focuses on attitudes rather than structures, focuses on the individual rather than collectivity, [and] focuses on personal growth rather than political transformation, and education. Education is not neutral; stress is on the need to look at both sides of an issue. [Moreover,] within curriculum, differences of gender, race, and class are respected, but there is no attempt to tackle the associated power inequities” (241). The ds Initiative begins to grapple with the impact of neoliberal policies and procedures in Canadian schools. However, it can be argued that it does not focus on the collective and political transformation of our schools. I believe that critical practitioner research can contribute to reforming and transforming our Canadian public schools. With this vision of a revised d s Initiative based on the findings shared throughout this paper, there is a possibility of doing collective work through active practitioner research and using the hopeful findings of a revised d s Initiative to tackle the political nature of inequitable public schools in Canada. The political nature of such

31656_Clausen-black.indd 300

20-06-11 13:19



Challenges to Equity-Based Teacher Education Initiatives 301

engaged practitioner research would address the power inequities that maintain status quo teaching practices in public schools through a dialogue of critical questions and new possibilities for equitable schooling experiences. Thus, statements such as what follows would be supported by practitioner research that is experienced and acknowledged by future educators: “From childhood, we have been socialized to believe that schools are the great equalizers in American [and Canadian] society. We are told that schools ‘level the playing field,’ providing opportunity for all, regardless of social background, by serving as the impartial ground on which individuals freely prove their merit … This ideological formulation is deeply ingrained in the everyday consciousness of most people in this country, validating social inequality” (Villegas and Lucas 2002, 22). Having recognized the differential treatment that exists in Canadian public schools and the power dynamics that are embedded in the political structure of schooling begins to scratch the surface of the larger structural problem with schooling. Canadian public schooling, similar to American public schooling, tends “to reproduce existing social inequalities while giving the illusion that such inequalities are natural and fair” (Villegas and Lucas 2002, 23). Unfortunately, because the structure of schooling and school culture has not changed, which includes the power dynamics implicit in the functioning of schools, the reproduction of these inequities has not been interrupted. Thus, if more active practitioner research is encouraged and done in Canadian public schools, perhaps we will find unimagined alternatives that could only be perceived collectively through practitioner research. The Urban Diversity Program,5 like the d s Initiative, promotes an equity-based approach to teaching. However, it directly examines the complexity and messiness of teacher identity, power dynamics, student disengagement, and the conflict it may have with the political and social identity of institutions and school culture. Moreover, this program discusses the importance of how teacher identity influences how we understand ourselves as “equity educators” in school spaces, especially in neoliberal times. Thus, in light of narratives shared in the Urban Diversity Program, it is possible and necessary to incorporate and engage in discussions of teacher identity, teacher experience, and power dynamics in university-school–based partnerships when doing equity-based work. As a result, this program provides a different

31656_Clausen-black.indd 301

20-06-11 13:19

302

Manu Sharma

beginning point in bringing into conversation possible practitioner researchers’ identity, equity-based pedagogy, and brainstorming possibilities for an increasingly diverse society. In the words of Gillian Perrett (2003), “Teacher [candidates]s appreciate being introduced to new ideas in their inservice experiences and we believe they are most likely to integrate the insights they gain from these experiences if they are encouraged to do so in a structured or semi-structured way … [however] this points to improvement in professional competence, this appears to encompass teaching competence rather than the development of research competence” (9), and thus there needs to be a stronger push for practitioner research in teacher education programs that choose to make a conscious effort toward creating equitable schooling experiences for all students. With the analysis of the ds Initiative throughout this chapter, the possibility of introducing practitioner research into the urban diversity program in another Canadian university, the intention to revise the ds Initiative, and the overall recommendation of aiming for collective practitioner research with a focus on political transformation of our schools, there is hope for creating high-quality schooling experiences that are equitable for all students through continued practitioner research opportunities in Canadian schools.

notes

  1 Please note that all the names and identifiers of the program and program participants have been replaced with pseudonyms to preserve their confidentiality.   2 Two associate teachers declined the opportunity to continue the research project for personal reasons unknown; thus, instead of data from ten associate teachers, only data from eight associate teachers were used for this study.   3 What does putting a student at the back of the classroom symbolize? How does the student interpret this action by the teacher? Do the intentions of the educator count, or does the action speak louder? Is there any discussion between the educator and the student? These are a few of the questions that come to mind when reading this narrative.   4 It is important to note that these are inquiries of mine that go beyond the d s Initiative and are meant to call attention to concerns in ite programs focused on equity.

31656_Clausen-black.indd 302

20-06-11 13:19



Challenges to Equity-Based Teacher Education Initiatives 303

  5 For more information on the Urban Diversity Program done at York University, please refer to Brave New Teachers: Doing Social Justice Work in Neo-liberal Times by R. Patrick Solomon, Jordan Singer, Arlene Campbell, Andrew Allen, with the assistance of John P. Portelli (2011). references

Arnold, Rick, Bev Burke, Carl James, D’Arcy Martin, and Barb Thomaset. 1991. Educating for a Change. Toronto, on: Between the Lines Press. Cochran-Smith, Marilyn, and Susan L. Lytle. 1993. Inside/Outside Teacher Research and Knowledge. New York: ny: Teachers College Press. – 2009. Inquiry as Stance: Practitioner Research for the Next Generation. New York, n y: Teachers College Press. Dadds, Marion, Hart, Susan, and Crotty, Tish. 2001. Doing Practitioner Research Differently. London, UK: Psychology Press. Freire, Paulo. 1970. Pedagogy of the Oppressed. Translated by Myra Bergman Ramos. New York, n y: Continuum. – 2001. Pedagogy of Freedom: Ethics, Democracy, and Civic Courage. New York, n y: Rowman and Littlefield. Gay, Geneva. 2002. “Preparing for Culturally Responsive Teaching.” Journal of Teacher Education 53(2), 106–16. Giroux, Henry A. 1992. “Resisting Difference: Cultural Studies and the Discourse of Critical Pedagogy.” In Cultural Studies, edited by Lawrence Grossberg, Cary Nelson, and Paula A. Treichler. New York, ny: Routledge. Greenback, Paul. 2003. “The Role of Values in Educational Research: The Case for Reflexivity.” British Educational Research Journal 29(6), 791–801. Kincheloe, Joe L. 1999. “Critical Democracy and Education.” In James G. Henderson and Kathleen R. Kesson, Understanding Democratic Curriculum Leadership. New York, n y: Teachers College, Columbia University Press. Ladson-Billings, Gloria. 1995a. “Toward a Theory of Culturally Relevant Pedagogy.” American Educational Research Journal 32(3), 465–91. – 1995b. “But That’s Just Good Teaching! The Case for Culturally Relevant Pedagogy.” Theory into Practice 34(3), 159–65. Perrett, Gillian. 2003. “Teacher Development through Action Research: A Case Study in Focused Action Research.” Australian Journal of Teacher Education 27(2), 1–10.

31656_Clausen-black.indd 303

20-06-11 13:19

304

Manu Sharma

Sharma, Manu. 2013. “Exploring Culturally Responsive and Relevant Pedagogy in Initial Teacher Education: A Critical Practitioner Research Study.” Toronto, on : University of Toronto Press (doctoral dissertation). Sleeter, Christine, Myriam N. Torres, and Peggy Laughlin. 2004. “Scaffolding Conscientization through Inquiry in Teacher Education.” Teacher Education Quarterly 31(1), 81–96. Solomon, R. Patrick, Jordan Singer, Arlene Campbell, and Andrew Allen, with the assistance of John P. Portelli. 2011. Brave New Teachers: Doing Social Justice Work in Neo-Liberal Times. Toronto, on: Canadian Scholars’ Press. Souto-Manning, Mariana. 2012. “Teacher as Researcher: Teacher Action Research in Teacher Education.” Childhood Education 88(1), 54–6. Ungar, Michael, Patrick McGrath, David Black, Ingrid Sketris, Shelly Whitman, and Linda Liebenberg. 2015. “Contribution of Participatory Action Research to Knowledge Mobilization in Mental Health Services for Children and Families.” Qualitative Social Work 14(5), 599–615. Villegas, Ana María, and Tamara Lucas. 2002. “Preparing Culturally Responsive Teachers: Rethinking the Curriculum.” Journal of Teacher Education 53(1), 20–32.

31656_Clausen-black.indd 304

20-06-11 13:19

17 PAR at the Crossroads Prospects and Possibilities Steven Jordan

introduction

Although the two terms are often conflated and used interchangeably in academic discourse, the history, politics, and intellectual roots of participatory action research (par) and action research (ar) are quite different. While pa r primarily originated in the Global South as an inherently political strategy to mobilize marginalized communities and groups around anti-colonial struggles, ar chiefly emerged from within the academies of the Global North to improve professional practice in education and related fields (Kapoor and Jordan 2009) {Kapoor, 2009 #215}{Kapoor, 2009 #211}. However, as pa r has become increasingly popular and mainstreamed within the academy, it has also been subject to a subtle process of co-option and detachment from the radical traditions that originally defined it within the Global South (Jordan 2003). This chapter will argue that par, therefore, can be understood to be at a crossroads or turning point in the contemporary period in which it confronts either institutional assimilation and pacification or a resurgence of its original radical ideals, principles, and politics. As I argue in this chapter, this is not just simply a matter of preference for a particular methodological stance but a question of whether researchers in education see themselves as primarily engaging in research that has a professional focus, is technically precise, and is restricted to the academy or that critically engages with the issues that define our times within society as a whole. As I have observed elsewhere in relation to “blind drift” in qualitative research

31656_Clausen-black.indd 305

20-06-11 13:19

306

Steven Jordan

over the past two decades (Jordan and Wood 2017), my argument in this chapter is similar in that it suggests we should attempt to reclaim and revitalize pa r as a method of the margins for the increasing numbers of the marginalized that neoliberal “accumulation by dispossession” (Harvey 2003) will create as the twenty-first century unfolds in the Global South and North. The chapter has two sections, followed by some concluding reflections. The first section takes up the idea of “blind drift” in the social sciences that the sociologist C. Wright Mills first coined more than a half century ago (Mills 1959). His argument was that despite the implicit critical foundations within the social sciences bestowed by Marx, Durkheim, Weber, and others, the postwar period witnessed their capitulation to corporatist and technical-rationale modes of thought that rendered them integral to the development of capitalism (Fay 1975). Likewise, my argument in this chapter is that pa r (and by extension, I would argue, much of action research) has in recent years been subject to a very similar logic that has been driven by forms of knowledge production arising from neoliberal regimes of thought within education and society. The second section asks how this process of neoliberal blind drift can be challenged and halted. The question that confronts us here is how pa r and other forms of participatory research can not only resist this process but be subversive of it. To do this, the chapter explores three methodologies that have attempted to offer a critique of neoliberal knowledge production and that have also attempted to pose an alternative epistemological standpoint from which to conduct research. As noted above, the final section offers some concluding reflections on the future of pa r .

“blind

drift”

We should continue to be concerned with what the sociologist C. Wright Mills referred to as “blind drift” in the social sciences (1959). Mills was referring to the way in which sociology in particular, and the social sciences more generally, during the postwar period appeared to be succumbing to corporatist and technical-rational forces exerted by both capitalist development and the institutions of the state. More than half a century after Mills’s observation, the pace of blind drift appears to have accelerated, reached a fever pitch even, under neoliberal globalization whereby the rule of the market and privatization has infiltrated research across a broad swathe of disciplines from the

31656_Clausen-black.indd 306

20-06-11 13:19



PA R at the Crossroads

307

natural and social sciences to educational research. For instance, in their interviews with more than forty British social anthropologists, Mills and Ratcliffe (2012, 151) have observed how the concept of the “value chain” (borrowed from the private sector) has infiltrated the criteria by which UK national funding councils award research grants so that “The impetus is to increase the rate of what the bureaucrats now call ‘research outputs’ and, where possible, to create commercial value from publicly funded research.” A similar pattern can be discerned in Canada where, for example, the Canadian Institutes of Health Research (c i h r ) has recently proposed a “requirement for many grant recipients to find matching funds” that will invariably have to be generated from the private sector (Eggertson 2015). This contemporary mentality, as Mirowski and Plehwe (2009) have shown, has been the product of an ideological project that had its antecedents as far back as the 1930s but that gained momentum after the 1980s. As they note: “Neoliberals aimed to develop a thoroughgoing reeducation effort for all parties to alter the tenor and meaning of political life: nothing more, nothing less. Neoliberal intellectuals identified their targets, which, in Fabian tradition, had been described as elite civil society. Their efforts were aimed primarily at winning over intellectuals and opinion leaders of future generations, and their primary tool was redefining the place of knowledge in society, which also became the central theme in their theoretical tradition” (431; italics added). My argument is that forms of participatory and action research have also been subject to this process of “redefining of knowledge” under the weight of neoliberal thought and practice, which has detached it from its original emancipatory, radical democratic, and inclusive impulses. This has had two notable effects on the contemporary trajectory and aims of pa r . The first is the “discovery” and then co-option of pa r by both state and private-sector institutions and agencies for purposes other than what it was originally developed for. In these contexts, par and participatory processes are invariably viewed as a tool for maximizing the capacity and productivity of the “value chain” in business and the neoliberal state and enacting regimes of social regulation for the purposes of control. Second, there has been the increasing tendency for researchers to view pa r as a methodology decontextualized from its historical and/or ethical/ political roots. That is, pa r in its current use is too easily reduced to yet another competing methodology in the toolbox of educational

31656_Clausen-black.indd 307

20-06-11 13:19

308

Steven Jordan

researchers aimed at producing technical fixes for social/educational problems. In this respect, participation/action are conceptualized as means by which researchers can more effectively mobilize their subjects for the purpose of generating research findings that will feed into more efficient and value-adding work processes rather than effecting social change aimed at bettering the lives of those who participate/collaborate in their projects. What implications does blind drift have for us, both as educators and as practitioners of pa r ? As I suggest above, we must recognize that par as a field of social inquiry and methodology is a contested terrain in the contemporary era. On the one hand, there are many practitioners of par who are still committed to its original core values and principles centred in critique, a radical politics, and social justice. On the other hand, as I also suggest, neoliberalism has enacted ways of redefining and re-valuing forms of knowledge production within social research that have witnessed versions of pa r being harnessed to the priorities of the value chain and market (Jordan 2007). Thus, while it is acknowledged that there is no one, pure form of pa r but versions of it across a continuum of participation, it is nevertheless important to realize that that continuum itself continues to be subtly, but unremittingly, subject to the blind drift of neoliberal globalization. The question then becomes not only how this can be challenged and resisted but how the ground lost to the corrosive tendencies of neoliberalism can be reclaimed. It is to this question that I now turn. r e c l a i m i n g pa r

I have noted elsewhere that par is more an amalgam of methodological approaches than a distinct methodology per se (Jordan et al. 2009). In this respect, it can better be understood as an orientation to educational and social research that is flexible, multidisciplinary, and critical and that has praxis as its core guiding principle. However, I have also suggested that as with other forms of educational and social research, par has increasingly either been co-opted for purposes other than what it was originally designed or gradually assimilated or mainstreamed, effectively eviscerating its potential to oppose and challenge the social relations of neoliberal globalization and the continued trajectories of the coloniality of global power. This process will continue apace unless practitioners of pa r make concerted, deliberate, and conscious efforts to reinvigorate pa r as a methodology of and

31656_Clausen-black.indd 308

20-06-11 13:19



PA R at the Crossroads

309

for the margins. One way, though by no means the only way that this might be accomplished, is to reconnect par with its historical origins that were critical, oppositional, inclusive, and deeply embedded within a politics of the marginal and subaltern (Kapoor 2011). While mainstream educational and social science methodologies cannot be regarded as reservoirs for this kind of project, alternative approaches on their margins do exist that might be drawn on to inform the development of the kind of pa r I am suggesting here. In what follows, I focus on three such approaches that could be used to anchor pa r to anti-neoliberal modes of knowledge production. Institutional ethnography, or “i e ” as it is often referred to now, has been advanced over the past three decades by the Canadian sociologist Dorothy Smith and her students (Campbell and Gregor 2002). It has been used in a wide range of contexts, including nursing, education, immigration policy, n g o s, and local government. Although its genesis and development have emerged from the work of academics, it has nevertheless mounted a sustained critique of the social sciences (particularly sociology), ruling relations, and the state, derived from a theoretical perspective primarily informed by feminism and Marxism. Although Smith’s i e is not concerned with participatory research per se, it does nevertheless have profound implications for the conduct of pa r. Her concepts of “entry points,” “textually mediated social organization,” and the “conceptual practices of power” explicitly recognize that education and social research are always conducted within the context of capitalist social relations. For example, rather than use the interview or participant observation to explore individuals’ perceptions, attitudes, or meanings, these methods are instead construed by i e as “entry points” into webs of social relations that coordinate ruling across innumerable local sites within contemporary capitalism. As Hussey (2012, 5) in his overview of i e explains it: “Unlike researchers who use interviews to collect data on individual experience, institutional ethnographers use interviews as part of a method of mapping institutional and organizational processes … In i e , talking with people is meant to open doors into the ruling relations and how the local hooks into trans local governing and bureaucratic processes, rather than windows into participants’ inner experience.” Although I noted above that ie has emerged from within the realm of the academy and that Smith herself still wants to cling to the notion of the sociologist/researcher as “expert,” it is significant that i e has inspired “political activist ethnography,”

31656_Clausen-black.indd 309

20-06-11 13:19

310

Steven Jordan

or pae, that is distinctly grounded in the other world of social movement activists (Hussey 2012; Smith 1990). It is also worth noting here that ie’s notion of entry points, through an interview or text for example, implicitly recognizes that neoliberal capitalism – particularly the knowledge economy – is predicated on networks of social relations that are coordinated, concerted, and sustained by the aura of the capital relation. This is what allows handsoff, or, as Smith calls it, “extra-local ruling” to be exercised within the everyday world. In pae, as in related methodologies such as “collective ethnography” (Mathew 2010), entry points are viewed as portals into social networks that can be used to organize collective action across a range of sites, whether it be at the point of production in a workplace or in a community where fracking is being contested. Activist-scholars have also begun to make significant contributions to redefining par methodology over the past ten to fifteen years. While this approach has borrowed theory and concepts arising from scholarly debate and discourse from within the academy (including i e and, more broadly, critical theory), its primary impetus has come from knowledge-producing practices generated from within social movements engaged in political struggles over neoliberal globalization, the environment, Indigenous land rights, and so on. Contrary to Smith’s notion of the expert sociologist, the researcher within this paradigm has to be prepared to become a “willing hostage” (Kapoor 2009) of those she is conducting research with. In this respect, activist research is much closer to forms of participatory research and pa r in that it deliberately attempts to do away with intellectual and organizational distinctions that define conventional academic research. However, unlike some versions of par that have been increasingly co-opted by the state and capital in the contemporary era (Jordan 2003), activist research persistently focuses on revealing how state and corporate power is organized so that social movements can question, challenge, and confront it. Choudry and Kuyek (2012, 24) describe the activist research process as follows: “Sometimes activist research seems akin to unravelling a ball of string – but it is the analysis and overarching sets of understandings about how states, capital, and various agencies and institutions function which help to guide the unravelling process, alongside on-going relationships and discussions with social movements.” They argue that it is “relations of trust” built over long periods of time with social movement activists that allows the forging of dialogical, social networks on which this kind of research depends.

31656_Clausen-black.indd 310

20-06-11 13:19



PA R at the Crossroads

311

Unlike academic research, however, which is increasingly defined by external funding priorities (and the commercialization of research outcomes), activist research arises from immediate struggles that movements are engaged in (e.g., opposition to fracking) “or seek[s] to explicate and expose underlying ruling practices which socially organize institutions or actions on a longer-term or historic basis” (Choudry and Kuyek 2012, 32). While it is important to recognize that this is research for social change, it is equally important to understand that it challenges and confronts social change as it is envisioned by neoliberalism or, more often, the indirect consequence of policies and practices that are rendered by it through what Harvey (2003) has termed “accumulation by dispossession” (e.g., privatization and deregulation of public services/spaces, water, and so on). In this way, activist research holds out a number of possibilities for renewing par . The first advantage of activist research is precisely that it principally operates outside of academic institutions and so is not weighed down by particular academic traditions, conventions, or boundary maintenance practices. Consequently, rather than being viewed as a methodology requiring specialized training, activist research arises from and is informed by a broad range of sites of struggle that ordinary people are engaged in on an everyday basis. In this respect, activist research can be conceptualized as a form of networked (or subaltern) research from below in that it arises from organic intellectuals (Gramsci 1974) with deep and ongoing links to a wide range of social movements that are often connected at the local, national, and international levels. Second, it inverts traditional academic notions – promoted by ­government and other funding agencies over the past decade – of knowledge mobilization whereby researchers have to be able to show measurable impacts of their work on society. Alternately, activist research has historically always been concerned with the mobilization of knowledge arising from social movements engaged in struggles over threats to, or attempts to reclaim, the collective commons. Indeed, this has been its modus operandi since at least the nineteenth century. This is witnessed in recent history with movements such as Occupy Wall Street, Idle No More, the Standing Rock encampment, and Black Lives Matter, as well as anti-austerity campaigns since 2008. In other words, knowledge mobilization is implicit within activist research because of its organic connection with social movements working for social change; it does not arise from a pre-specified requirement imposed by an external funding agency.

31656_Clausen-black.indd 311

20-06-11 13:19

312

Steven Jordan

Third, activist research has remarkable parallels with what the historian Richard Johnson (1979, 5) has termed “really useful knowledge.” His notion of really useful knowledge comes from historical studies of early nineteenth-century working class radicals in Britain to establish independent forms of education before the advent of stateprovided mass schooling. As with activist research, really useful knowledge drew on popular culture for its content and forms. In particular, Johnson has shown that it relied upon four elements: it was oppositional to state forms of education; it enacted alternative practices of learning that were concerned with self-education; it was preoccupied with “education, politics, knowledge, and power”; and it focused on the formation of autonomous educational practices that served practical ends – for the learner, from his or her standpoint within the world. In brief, it was counter-hegemonic to forms of social regulation imposed by both state and capital. In these ways, activist research can be understood as a continuation of alternative forms of learning and educational organization that have their origins in early industrial capitalism. Lastly, Indigenous Research Methodology (irm) has had a growing impact on both the academy and par , particularly since the publication of Tuhiwai-Smith’s Decolonizing Methodologies (1999). Although Indigenous research methods have developed within the shadow of the mainstream social sciences and have been informed by their disciplinary thinking, it is also nevertheless the case that the ontological and epistemological foundations of Indigenous everyday life, experience, and history have generated the development of significantly different principles and practices regarding research (Porsanger 2004). The over-arching consideration against which all irm has to be contextualized is the history of colonization that most Indigenous people have been subjected to over the past 500 years in North America and around the rest of the globe. Understood against this backdrop, i rm should not be viewed as simply another technical contribution to the vast toolbox of educational research methods that has emerged in the past four decades but as a determined political and ethical challenge to the continued marginalization of Indigenous peoples within education and society, recently witnessed at Standing Rock in North Dakota where Indigenous activists halted the construction of an oil pipeline. It is therefore of utmost importance that the principles and practices that constitute i r m be understood as emerging from an ongoing political struggle against colonialism, particularly in its contemporary neoliberal guise (Kovach 2009).

31656_Clausen-black.indd 312

20-06-11 13:19



PA R at the Crossroads

313

While anthropological and qualitative intellectual traditions have been influential, irm can also be understood as emerging from at least three other developments over the past two decades. First, as the title of Tuhiwai-Smith’s book suggests, i rm has been closely allied with Indigenous social and political struggles focusing on decolonizing institutions imposed by colonial powers over the past 200 years (e.g., residential schools). Those involved with irm are engaged in resisting contemporary neo-colonial/neoliberal forces aimed at commodifying their traditional lands through, for example, mining and forestry (Jordan 2013). Second, arising out of these struggles have been concerted efforts aimed at self-determination, ranging from asserting individual and collective rights and self-governance to creating public spaces in mainstream society for Indigenous issues, concerns, and rights to be addressed (e.g., Canada’s Truth and Reconciliation Commission). Third has been the recognition that Indigenous knowledge, customs, spirituality, traditional medicine, and healing practices are deep reservoirs for constructing Indigenous research methodologies that are autonomous of, and distinct from, Western academic research traditions. Last, and perhaps most significant, is the fact that in par, many Indigenous researchers see a reflection of their own knowledge, producing practices that have been practised within their communities for centuries (Tuhiwai-Smith 1999; Weber-Pilwax 2009). The principles and practices that have come to shape and define i r m in recent years can all be broadly understood as arising from an “Indigenous resurgence” that emphasizes respect, relationship, reciprocity, and the centrality of the spiritual world (Jordan 2014). First, contemporary social theory and conceptual apparatuses have to be reconceptualized through an Indigenous lens. While this does not imply the outright dismissal of Western social theory as the product of colonial history, it does require researchers learning from i r m to systematically and critically engage with the underlying assumptions of pa r from an Indigenous standpoint. This is achieved not only at the level of method where in Indigenous contexts, for instance, emphasis is placed on collective knowledge-producing practices (e.g., conversation circles and storytelling) as opposed to the structured individual interview or focus groups but also on a recognition that the spiritual realm is expressed through the physical world (through dreams, rituals, Elders) and would need to be valued and appreciated accordingly. In brief, everything has a life force and should be understood relationally (Hartt 2010). In recent

31656_Clausen-black.indd 313

20-06-11 13:19

314

Steven Jordan

years, Indigenous communities have established elaborate protocols on how research is to be conducted within their communities for this purpose. Within non-Indigenous contexts, irm can perform an activist function, as expressed in Idle No More or Standing Rock, in allowing Indigenous people and their collaborators to push for and open up spaces for dialogue, debate, and education on issues of concern to Indigenous people. conclusion

As I suggested at the beginning of this chapter, par stands at a crossroads, a turning point in its history, that will likely define its future trajectory over the coming decades. On the one hand, this could see pa r becoming increasingly assimilated within the academy as just another methodological approach to solving social problems from within a technical-rational paradigm as expressed by, for example, the oxymoron “participatory management.” On the other, we could also witness a resurgent par that reconnects with its radical, anti-colonial roots in the Global South as a “method of the margins” and that stands against the increasingly destructive power of neoliberal capitalism. Because I have focused on this critical approach in the chapter, I want to provide some concluding reflections on how these alternate visions of par may evolve in the near future. While the alternate approaches to par I have mapped out have their own shortcomings, they do nevertheless point to new ways of exploring and conceptualizing pa r in a world dominated by neoliberal globalization, particularly as it affects education (Ball 2012). They have all emerged either from the fringes of institutionalized scholarship (ie) or have roots in social movements outside of it (activist research and irm). They are not bound by traditions and conventions of the corporate university (Ginsberg 2011; Turk 2000). These methodologies closely ally themselves with social movements that challenge and resist the common-sense hegemony of neoliberal regimes of thought. They also upend and thereby contest notions of “knowledge mobilization” and “integrated/knowledge translation” so popular with government funding agencies over the past decade. As noted in relation to activist research and i r m in particular, the knowledge-producing practices of these methodologies are organic in that they arise from the social movements in which researchers are often embedded. In this respect, they are rooted in alternative social networks that are distinct

31656_Clausen-black.indd 314

20-06-11 13:19



PA R at the Crossroads

315

from, stand outside of, and are opposed to neoliberal ideologies, its associated relations of accumulation by dispossession (abd), politics, and policy-making. These social networks do not only prefigure an autonomous intellectual milieu that has the potential to re-infuse par with a politics of the margins but have the capacity to challenge and destabilize the common-sense nostrums of neoliberalism expressed in the “tina” principle (there is no alternative to the market, privatization, etc.). This is why their methods of knowledge-production are generally accessible to participants in social movements, the general public, the media, and government agencies. With the exception of i e ,  which positions the researcher as an expert, activist and i r m approaches prefigure radically different forms of social organization and practice for the research process in pa r . This ranges from the researcher being prepared to be taken as a “willing hostage” to the recognition that tools, other than the standard interview or focus group, need to be explored with particular populations (e.g., talking circles of Indigenous people). However, this is contingent on the fact that practitioners of pa r must be open to embracing different cosmologies, ontological principles, and epistemological standpoints that may well conflict with and contradict their own academic training. In short, the future of this kind of counter-hegemonic par will probably be determined by the adoption of these sensibilities by researchers over the coming years.

references

Ball, Stephen John. 2012. Global Education Inc: New Policy Networks and the Neoliberal Imaginary. New York, ny: Routledge. Campbell, Marie, and Frances Gregor. 2002. Mapping Social Relations: A Primer in Doing Institutional Ethnography. Aurora, on: Garamond Press. Choudry, Aziz, and Devlin Kuyek. 2012. “Activist Research: Mapping Power Relations, Informing Struggles.” In Organize! Building from the Local for Global Justice, edited by Aziz Choudry, Jill Hanley, and Eric Shragge, 23–35. Oakland, ca: pm Press. Eggertson, Laura. 2015. “ci hr Excludes Aboriginal Health in Review.” Canadian Medical Association Journal 187(2), 97–8. Fay, Brian. 1975. Social Theory and Political Practice. London, UK: George Allen and Unwin.

31656_Clausen-black.indd 315

20-06-11 13:19

316

Steven Jordan

Ginsberg, Benjamin. 2011. The Fall of the Faculty: The Rise of the AllAdministrative University and Why It Matters. Oxford, UK, and New York, ny: Oxford University Press. Gramsci, Antonio. 1974. The Prison Notebooks. London, UK: Lawrence and Wishart. Hartt, Michael Anthony. 2010. “Indigenous Worldviews, Knowledge, and Research: The Development of an Indigenous Paradigm.” Journal of Indigenous Voices in Social Work 1(1), 1–16. Harvey, David. 2003. The New Imperialism. Oxford, UK, and New York, ny: Oxford University Press. Hussey, Ian. 2012. “Political Activist as Ethnographer Revisited.” Canadian Journal of Sociology 37(1), 1–23. Johnson, Richard. 1979. “‘Really Useful Knowledge’: Radical Education and Working-Class Culture, 1790–1848.” In Working Class Culture: Studies in History and Theory, edited by John Clarke, Chas Critcher, and Richard Johnson, 75–102. New York, ny: St Martin’s Press. Jordan, Steven. 2003. “Who Stole My Methodology? Co-opting par .” Globalisation, Societies and Education 1(2), 185–200. – 2007. “Participatory Action Research (par ).” In sage Encyclopedia of Qualitative Research, edited by Lisa Mae Given, 601–4. Thousand Oaks, c a : Sage. – 2013. “New Approaches to Governance and Decision-Making: Quebec’s Plan Nord and Integrating Indigenous Knowledge into Social Science Research.” In The World Social Science Report 2013: Changing Global Environments, edited by Heide Hackmann, 454–7. Paris, France: une s c o / oecd. – 2014. “Indigenous Research Methods.” In Encyclopedia of Action Research, edited by David Cochlan and Mary Brydon-Miller. Thousand Oaks, c a : Sage. Jordan, Steven, Christine Stocek, Mark Rodney, and Stacey Matches. 2009. “Doing Participatory Evaluation: From ‘Jagged World Views’ to Indigenous Methodology.” Australian Journal of Indigenous Education 38(Supplement), 74–82. Jordan, Steven, and Elizabeth Wood. “The Qualitative Imagination: Neoliberalism, ‘Blind Drift’ and Alternative Pathways.” Globalisation, Societies and Education 15(2), 147–59. Kapoor, Dip. 2009. “Participatory Academic Research (par) and People’s Participatory Action Research (par): Research, Politicisation, and Subaltern Social Movements in India.” In Education, Participatory Action Research, and Social Change: International Perspectives, edited

31656_Clausen-black.indd 316

20-06-11 13:19



PA R at the Crossroads

317

by Dip Kapoor and Steven Jordan, 29–44. New York ny: Palgrave Macmillan. – 2011. Critical Perspectives on Neoliberal Globalization, Development and Education in Africa and Asia. Rotterdam, Netherlands: Sense Publishers. Kapoor, Dip, and Steven Jordan. 2009. Education, Participatory Action Research, and Social Change: International Perspectives. New York, ny: Palgrave Macmillan. Kovach, Margaret. 2009. Indigenous Methodologies: Characteristics, Conversations and Contexts. Toronto, on: University of Toronto Press. Mathew, Biju. 2010. “Conversations on the M60: Knowledge Production through Collective Ethnographies.” In Aziz Choudry and Dip Kapoor, Learning from the Ground Up: Global Perspectives on Social Movements and Knowledge Production. New York, ny: Palgrave Macmillan. Mills, Charles Wright. 1959. The Sociological Imagination. New York, ny: Oxford University Press. Mills, David, and Richard Ratcliffe. 2012. “After Method? Ethnography in the Knowledge Economy.” Qualitative Research 12(2), 147–64. Mirowski, Philip, and Dieter Plehwe. 2009. The Road from Mont Pèlerin: The Making of the Neoliberal Thought Collective. London, on: Harvard University Press. Porsanger, Jelena. 2004. “An Essay about Indigenous Methodology.” hjem 15(Special Issue on Northern Minorities), 105–20. Smith, George W. 1990. “Political Activist as Ethnographer.” Social Problems 37(4), 629–47. Tuhiwai-Smith, Linda. 1999. Decolonising Methodologies: Research and Indigenous Peoples. New York, n y: St Martin’s Press. Turk, James. 2000. The Corporate Campus: Commercialisation and the Dangers to Canada’s Colleges and Universities. Toronto, on: James Lorimer. Weber-Pilwax, Cora. 2009. “When Research Becomes a Revolution: par with Indigenous Peoples.” In Education, Participatory Action Research, and Social Change, edited by Dip Kapoor and Steven Jordan, 45–58. New York, n y: Palgrave Macmillan.

31656_Clausen-black.indd 317

20-06-11 13:19

31656_Clausen-black.indd 318

20-06-11 13:19

Conclusion Kurt W. Clausen and Glenda L. Black

Entering onto a Parks Canada path, posted signs will guide you on a 2 km, a 6 km, or a 24 km hike. As long as you follow one of these trails you will reach your destination. On your journey through the park, you can go off the path to peek over a ridge without risk of getting lost and losing sight of your chosen route. The authors in this book hope they have provided similar insight into the various paths of action research. Some have hiked across grassy fields, on tracks well worn; others have taken more formidable ways and trekked steep mountains to reach their summit. We now suggest that future action researchers not only follow the timeworn trails but look over the ridge and continue to forge new routes. This concluding chapter summarizes our aspirations for action research in Canada. We begin the discussion with the path action researchers have now established, as well as the challenges, benefits, stakeholders, and opportunities that can be seen on the horizon. w o r n pat h s

Action research (participatory action research is implied for the remainder of the discussion) continues to be a method used to create a culture of evidence-informed decision-making in education. The authors in this book offer convincing support for continuing action research for social change and problem-solving. In our complex world, action research has the flexibility to be custom-fitted to context. The action research paths can be navigated alone, with a partner, or with an entire community. Canadian educators have followed the paths of Kurt Lewin (1946), Terry Carson and Dennis Sumara (1997), Jim

31656_Clausen-black.indd 319

20-06-11 13:19

320

Kurt W. Clausen and Glenda L. Black

Parsons (2013), and other action research trailblazers. The authors have shared how action researchers have demonstrated their professional learning, scholarship, and commitment to creating a researchbased community of practice. challenges

There are caution signs to watch for when selecting an action research path. There are studies that claim to use action research methods but do not follow the rigour of action research. Some studies have attempted to legitimize their project as action research after the fact. Past generations of action researchers worked hard to establish the integrity of action research methodology. These studies discredit the action research paths that were difficult to navigate. Action researchers still have had to traverse the rocks thrown by the scientific community by demonstrating the validity of and for action research. One of the most significant challenges to action research in education and communities is time. It is not possible to simply ask teachers and community partners to add another activity, engage in the action research, without providing the space in their schedule to support the inquiry. Teachers consistently state they need time for reading research, planning and implementing the changes and engaging in the data analysis, and sharing and collaborating. No matter how significant the project for improving student learning or professional practice, unless teachers or community partners have time to engage in the process, the outcome will not result in sustained change. Teachers want intentional support to implement research, which may include release time to conduct research or to collaborate or additional resources to support the research practices. A caution, however, is the top-down approach to enacting change. If teachers did not participate in the development of the action research, they should not be expected to engage in the inquiry. Educational leaders are encouraged to distribute the decision-making authority across the educational community. benefits

As reflected in the preceding chapters, action research has become more sophisticated in its purpose and scope. Teacher-researchers and scholars have used action research to redesign professional development and education in context. Educators and community partners

31656_Clausen-black.indd 320

20-06-11 13:19

Conclusion 321

are invigorated by using cutting-edge pedagogies, informed by evidence, and are sharing their findings to audiences in the school and beyond through conferences, professional magazines, peer-reviewed journals (such as the Canadian Journal of Action Research [cjar ]), blogs, and books. Another format teachers and communities are using to disseminate their findings is online platforms: for example, TeachOntario (https://www.teachontario.ca), a website for educators to share and network. As mentioned above, time will always be an issue with teacher research at all stages of action research. s ta k e h o l d e r s

Ministries of education, teachers’ governing bodies, and school districts are beginning to see the benefits of teacher agency and inquiry and are actively supporting action research. There is a movement toward a more sustainable professional development approach, which provides opportunities for self-directed inquiries for more impactful change. This movement away from the one-day teacher training session should start with teacher candidates in bachelor of education programs. Teacher preparation programs are encouraged to engage teacher candidates in teacher inquiry as part of their pre-service years’ practice. Introducing teacher inquiry through action research may assist them in developing their identities as teacher-researchers with the knowledge, skills, and confidence to conduct their own research and contribute their findings to the educational community. Faculties of education need to take an active role in continuing to encourage teachers to engage in research through the inclusion of action research components in the curriculum of undergraduate courses, master’s graduate programs, and additional qualification courses. Action research has the potential for educators to engage in authentic, contextual research and share findings within a network of practitioner-researchers. If the course is subject-specific, they are sharing with colleagues with similar experience and expertise. The paths of action research in education and communities are worn by those who have previously explored a social phenomenon and conducted action research to achieve the goal of thoughtful and impactful change. Teachers and communities are encouraged to engage in implementing and conducting contextual, internal research activities to implement change. The Canadian educational system needs teachers and community partners who question and improve their practice through professional learning and knowledge creation. The

31656_Clausen-black.indd 321

20-06-11 13:19

322

Kurt W. Clausen and Glenda L. Black

teacher-researcher expands the expert knowledge beyond the scholarly activities of academics to include educators as experts and leaders in a learning community culture. Engaging in action research empowers teachers and increases their self- and teacher efficacy, which ultimately leads to student improvement. n e w pat h s

Canadian educators are encouraged to walk the path worn by longstanding experts in the field of action research. The conceptualization of action research by Kurt Lewin (1946), Terry Carson and Dennis Sumara (1997), and others is still relevant. But, to answer the question, what is the future of action research in Canada? What will it look like? Let’s look over the ridge and take a peek at the possibilities. Educators, teacher-researchers, community partners, and scholars are encouraged to create their own action research paths. As a community of practice, let us be innovators by indigenizing paths, promote Truth and Reconciliation, explore new theories of knowledge, advance an emancipatory or critical participatory/action research. Technologies have the potential to bring the nation’s action researchers together into communities of professionals. Going back to action research’s roots, let us share the power with the vulnerable and the marginalized and assume our social, political, and ethical responsibility. Critical practitioner-researchers exploring social phenomenon have the potential to create unimagined alternatives to student improvement and pedagogy. Where does action research go from here? The future of action research is in the hands of the chapter authors, the educators, and community partners who wish to forge their own action research trail. The authors and all action researchers have the privilege of not only looking behind them at a worn path but also the vision to create new paths for flight over the ridge.

references

Carson, Terrance R., and Dennis J. Sumara, eds. 1997. Action Research as a Living Practice. New York, n y: Lang International. Lewin, Kurt. 1946. “Action Research and Minority Problems.” Journal of Social Issues 2(4), 34–46. Parsons, Jim. 2013. “Changing Self-Definitions: The Agency of Action Research for Teachers.” Action Researcher in Education 4, 132–42.

31656_Clausen-black.indd 322

20-06-11 13:19

Contributors

the editors

Dr Kurt W. Clausen brings more than twenty years of experience in both the field of action research and the role of editor. Over this time, he has acted as editor-in-chief of the Canadian Journal of Action Research, which has brought him into the mainstream of this movement, publishing more than thirty issues and writing twenty-six editorials as well as numerous articles and book reviews on this subject. In 2014, he became the founder and first president of the Canadian Association of Action Research in Education (caare), a special interest group (si g) of the Canadian Association for Teacher Education. He is a contributor to the Palgrave International Handbook of Action Research and is currently editor of an encyclopedia of action research for Brill Publishers. D r G l e n da L . B l ac k has worked in the Canadian school system for more than twenty years as a teacher, administrator, and teacher educator. She has performed numerous projects in the field and has written extensively on teacher education. She has taken on the role of vice-president of the newly established Canadian Association of Action Research in Education (caare). In a recently revised bachelor of education, she is forging a path toward engaging teacher candidates in action research. Under her supervision, teacher candidates are entering the teaching profession with the knowledge and skills needed to act as professionals by identifying and solving problems in their own classrooms.

31656_Clausen-black.indd 323

20-06-11 13:19

324 Contributors

contributors

All of the contributors to this volume are Canadian, each representing a different research community across the country and bringing a wide range of expertise to the study of action research. Some are new scholars; others are seasoned veterans. Taken together, they should be seen as a cross-country perspective that speaks both to the vibrant past of the action research movement as well as to its future in Canada. They are, in alphabetical order:

Pamela Adams (University of Lethbridge) Dr Adams is an associate professor in the Faculty of Education at the University of Lethbridge in Alberta. She is a former K-12 classroom teacher, has taught at the undergraduate and graduate levels since 1996, has acted as an assistant dean in the faculty, and has been its primary representative on the Alberta Initiative for School Improvement (aisi). Over the past decade, she has conducted action research in more than 120 schools, investigating themes of leadership, teacher effectiveness, teacher preparation, and essential conditions for professional learning. Her published works include the book The Essential Equation for School Improvement, written with David Townsend and published by Detselig in 2009, as well as her upcoming book published by Canadian Scholars’ Press, entitled Generative Leadership in Education: The Power of Provocative Questions.

Larry Bencze (oise ) Larry Bencze (PhD, m s c, b s c, b e d) is an associate professor (emeritus) in science education at the University of Toronto (1998–present). Prior to this role, he worked for fifteen years as a science teacher and as a science education consultant in Ontario, Canada. His research program emphasizes critical analyses – drawing on history, philosophy, sociology, etc. – of science and technology, along with student-led research-informed and -negotiated socio-political actions to address personal, social, and environmental harms associated with the fields of science and technology. Recent publications include refereed articles and book chapters and two edited books about proactive citizenship. He also is co-editor of an open-source activist journal (goo.gl/ir7YRj).

31656_Clausen-black.indd 324

20-06-11 13:19

Contributors 325

Catherine D. Bruce (Trent University) With fourteen years of classroom teaching experience and thirteen years in academia, Dr Bruce is currently dean of the Faculty of Education at Trent University. Focusing on the development of young children’s spatial reasoning and its role in mathematics learning, she has been principal investigator for the Math for Young Children Project in Ontario, Canada. She holds several research grants from the Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada (s s h rc) and has produced numerous publications related to lesson study and collaborative action research. In 2013, Dr Bruce was honoured to receive the prestigious Ontario Colleges and University Faculty Association Teaching Award for teaching excellence and innovation. Because of her substantial organization of the 2015 Action Research Network of the Americas conference in Toronto and her role as a founding member of the organization, she received its distinguished Eduardo Flores International Leadership in Action Research award.

Zoe Donoahue (Dr Eric Jackman Institute of Child Study Lab School, oise , University of Toronto) Ms Donoahue began her career in teacher research as she worked on her master’s degree at the Ontario Institute for the Study of Education. Her focus of studies changed dramatically when she studied under Dr Gordon Wells, who allowed her to research questions about her own practice, taught her how to collect and analyze data, and gave her the experience and excitement of sharing her findings within a community of teacherresearchers. Having taught for many years at the Toronto District School Board, she has spent the past sixteen years as an elementary teacher at the Dr Eric Jackman Institute of Child Study Laboratory School, a small independent school that is part of the University of Toronto. The school has three focuses: providing an education for the 200 Nursery to Grade 6 students who attend the school, a master of arts in education program for more than 100 teacher candidates, and educational research that is conducted through the Dr R.G.N. Laidlaw Centre.

Linda Eyre (University of New Brunswick) With a research agenda that explores violence in the lives of youth using feminist participatory action research and arts-based inquiry,

31656_Clausen-black.indd 325

20-06-11 13:19

326 Contributors

Dr Eyre has been in the field of education since the late 1960s. She began her career teaching high school–aged students in the UK and Nova Scotia. She earned her PhD from u bc in 1993 and worked in the Faculty of Education at unb until her retirement in 2017, which included seven years as assistant dean of u n b ’s Interdisciplinary Studies graduate program. Dr Eyre has long been concerned with equity and social justice issues in education, teaching undergraduate and graduate courses in education and supervising master’s and doctoral students’ theses in critical/feminist studies and interdisciplinary studies. She has presented her research at numerous regional, national, and international conferences, and her work has appeared in prestigious scholarly journals and edited collections. She is a former board member of the Muriel McQueen Fergusson Centre for Family Violence Research and the unb Sexuality Centre.

Lynn Fels (Simon Fraser University) Dr Fels has been involved in the study of drama education since the mid-1970s, receiving a ba honours in theatre arts from Queen’s University. She was an educational writer, research consultant, children’s writer, storyteller, humour columnist, and performing arts educator before she entered the doctoral program at the University of British Columbia, graduating in 1999. She was the academic editor of Educational Insights from 2001 to 2010. She is now associate professor in arts education and co-director of the Centre for Art for Social Change at Simon Fraser University. Her current research focuses on exploring leadership through the arts, arts and technology, arts for social change, arts across the curriculum, and participatory action research. These interests were brought together in her 2008 book Exploring Curriculum: Performative Inquiry, Role Drama and Learning, co-authored with George Belliveau. Along with Ruth Martin, Carl Leggo, and Mo Korchinsky, she co-edited Arresting Hope (2015) and Releasing Hope (2019), writings by women formerly incarcerated and those who have walked alongside them.

Tara Flynn (Trent University) Tara Flynn is the director of research for the Trent Math Education Research Collaborative (t me rc ) at Trent University (Peterborough, Ontario, Canada) under the direction of Dr Cathy Bruce. Research

31656_Clausen-black.indd 326

20-06-11 13:19

Contributors 327

areas include: fractions, spatial reasoning, young children’s mathematics, collaborative action research, and lesson study.

Karen Goodnough (Memorial University of Newfoundland) Dr Goodnough has been a professor in the Faculty of Education at Memorial University of Newfoundland since 2003. Before becoming a faculty member at Memorial, she was a faculty member at the University of New Brunswick (2001–03) and prior to this appointment spent one year as a faculty member at the University of Rochester, New York. She is actively engaged in teaching, research and scholarship, and public engagement that focuses on collaborative action research, makerspaces and digital literacy, science teaching and learning, self-study in teacher education, teacher professional learning in stem (Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics) education, and inclusive education in science. Her most recent research funding from the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada (sshrc) focuses on science teacher educators’ inclusive perspectives and practices in initial teacher education. She is a former high school science teacher and spent several years working in the area of gifted education.

Peter Gouzouasis (University of British Columbia) Currently a professor in u b c ’s Department of Curriculum and Pedagogy, Dr Gouzouasis has been a lifelong student of music and media. Since his graduate work in the 1980s, he has led numerous research projects with young children and adolescents, studying various aspects of music making that involve traditional and emerging forms of media. He took a leading role in u bc’s teacher education program through the Fine Arts and Media in Education (fame) cohort (2000–10) and has also collaborated with North Vancouver School District 44 to develop an off-campus master’s degree cohort that is now in its fifth iteration (2005–present). He has published more than seventy refereed papers and book chapters, many through the lenses of Arts Based Research and Creative Analytical Practices, and a book, Pedagogy in a New Tonality (Sense Publishers), on the transformation of teachers into creative practitioners through engagement with arts research practices and the implementation of creative tactics, strategies, graphics organizers, visual journals, and portfolios across the K-12 curriculum.

31656_Clausen-black.indd 327

20-06-11 13:19

328 Contributors

Sarah El Halwany (oise ) Sarah El Halwany is a PhD candidate in science education at the Ontario Institute for Studies in Education, University of Toronto. She finished her bachelor of science and her master’s in science education from the American University of Beirut, Lebanon. She is an Ontario Certified Teacher and has taught math, biology, and French. Her dissertation explores affective constructions of cultures of technoscience technicians in the context of college education. She further explores effects of stepwise in engendering new subjectivities vis-à-vis fields of stem. Her research interests include s t s e education, emotions, and aesthetics in science education.

Steven Jordan (McGill University) An associate professor in the Faculty of Education at McGill University, Dr Jordan is currently the chair of the Department of Integrated Studies in Education (d i se ) and an associate member of the Faculty of Medicine. His research interests over the past twenty years have focused on the theory and practice of qualitative research, using participatory action research with Indigenous populations, and informal learning. Specifically, his research interests focus on exploring how forms of action and participatory research have increasingly been co-opted by neoliberal relations of accumulation. His most recent edited books include Education, par and Social Change: International Perspectives (2009), published by Palgrave/Macmillan, Fight Back: Workplace Justice for Immigrants (2009), published by Fernwood Press, and Research and Indigenous, Peasant and Urban Poor Activisms: Against Dispossession and Labour Exploitation in the Americas and Asia, published by Zed Press (forthcoming, 2019).

Sheena Koops (Bert Fox Community High School) Graduating with a bachelor of education degree from the University of Regina in 1991, Ms Koops’s life was profoundly altered when she began teaching in a fly-in community of the Black Lake Dene First Nation in northern Saskatchewan. She became involved in a project sponsored by the fledgling Dr Stirling McDowell Foundation for Research into Teaching that examined action research and learning from practice. However, it was not until twenty years later, after she

31656_Clausen-black.indd 328

20-06-11 13:19

Contributors 329

had moved to Fort Qu’Appelle, that she became re-involved in the foundation, participating in a roundtable discussion at its Learning from Practice Conference in 2011. At the time of this publication, Sheena is the past-president of the McDowell Foundation. She is pursuing a PhD at the University of Regina and recently left the classroom to become a Nation Builder Advocate with the Treaty 4 Education Alliance in Fort Qu’Appelle, serving the First Nations of Cote, Fishing Lake, Kawacatoose, Keeseekoose, Muskowekwan, Ocean Man, and White Bear.

Daniel Laitsch (Simon Fraser University) A native Virginian, Dr Laitsch received his ba and teaching certificate from the Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University in 1988 and taught at the Enterprise School in Fairfax County until 1997. After receiving his PhD in education and public policy at the American University in 2001, he was appointed to the position of assistant professor in the Faculty of Education at Simon Fraser University in 2005. Now associate professor, Dr Laitsch is primarily interested in the concept of research utilization, applying research to inform policy and practice. Specifically, this includes examining the use of research by teachers and the barriers/facilitators to such use. He speaks and writes extensively on this subject, and his most recent edited book asks the question Why Public Schools? Voices from the United States and Canada (2012). He is a past recipient of the Excellence in Research to Practice Award given by the American Educational Research Association, Special Interest Group on Research Use.

Sunny Man Chu Lau (Bishop’s University) Dr Lau is associate professor in the School of Education at Bishop’s University, Lennoxville, Quebec. Specializing in second language education, she teaches courses related to second language and literacy learning at the undergraduate and graduate levels. As the recipient of the 2012 Founders’ Emergent Scholars Award (sponsored by the International Society for Language Studies and the Language Studies Foundation), she is committed to critical scholarship in language studies, in particular critical literacy education with English language learners. Most of her research studies are qualitative inquiries, seeking dialogic approaches to theory-building through collaborative

31656_Clausen-black.indd 329

20-06-11 13:19

330 Contributors

classroom research with school partners. Further, she engages in ethnographic study in order to gain insights into how language is used.

Heather Lotherington (York University) Heather taught English at the secondary level in Papua New Guinea and at a polytechnic in Singapore before undertaking her m a in linguistics (Lancaster, UK, 1983) and PhD (oise/University of Toronto, 1989). She took a position in esl teacher education at the University of the South Pacific (Suva, Fiji) in 1989, moving to linguistics at Monash University (Melbourne, Australia) in 1996. There she began to explore the intersections between multilingual education and multimodal literacies, which continued to drive her research agenda at York University, which she joined in 1999. The collaborative action research she reports on here was a decade-long school-university project to forge new literacy pedagogies that welcomed the linguistic knowledge of the community and incorporated multiple media. This research has resulted in numerous presentations and publications, including two scholarly books: Pedagogy of mu ltiliteracies: Rewriting Goldilocks (2011, Routledge) and Teaching Young Learners in a Superdiverse World: Multimodal Approaches and Perspectives (2017, Routledge). She is currently associate dean of research and professor at York’s Faculty of Education.

Francine Morin (University of Manitoba) A certified Manitoba teacher since 1979, Dr Morin received her PhD from the University of North Dakota in 1990 and has become a leading authority in Canadian arts education. As associate dean, undergraduate, and acting department head of Curriculum, Teaching and Learning at the University of Manitoba, she is actively serving the arts and educational communities at provincial and national levels. Dr Morin introduced action research courses for undergraduate and graduate students in the Faculty of Education and teaches them regularly. She has conducted several action research studies, alone and with others, aimed at improving educational experiences and programs for children, teachers, and school administrators. One project gave educators a comprehensive look at school arts programming in Manitoba, generating findings used for action planning to improve dance, drama, visual arts, and music programs across the province. Currently, Dr Morin works in concert with field-based partners to

31656_Clausen-black.indd 330

20-06-11 13:19

Contributors 331

improve and refine a two-year induction program for early service teachers and an after-school orchestral program for children who live in disadvantaged school communities.

Chantal Pouliot (Laval University) Chantal Pouliot  is full professor of science education at Laval University in Quebec, Canada. She explores the relationships to scientific knowledge of students, pre-service science teachers, and citizens. A part of her research focuses on the teaching and learning of sociotechnical controversies. She documents the management of ongoing environmental controversies, looking at citizens’ capacities (formulation of problems, production of knowledge, and identification of solutions). She is actively engaged in work concerning the threats to academic freedom on Canadian campuses. Her latest book is entitled Quand les citoyen.ne.s soulèvent la poussière (When citizens raise dust) (Carte blanche, 2015).

Anita Prest (University of Victoria) After receiving a bachelor of music from the University of Victoria, Dr Prest went on to experience the next twenty years as an elementary and secondary school music educator in rural and metropolitan ­settings in British Columbia. While she pursued a doctorate at the University of British Columbia, she became concerned with the contributions of bridging social capital fostered by school-community music education partnerships to rural vitality. Currently, as an assistant professor at the University of Victoria, she teaches Curriculum and Instruction for Secondary School Music, Music in the Elementary Classroom 1 and 2, Teaching in Rural Communities, and Community and Culture. Dr Prest’s current research interest is to investigate the ways in which public school music educators in rural and metropolitan bc communities, together with Indigenous community members, have facilitated local Indigenous knowledge, pedagogy, and cultural practices in music classes, schools, and communities, thereby contributing to students’ cross-cultural understanding.

Allan Quigley (St Francis Xavier University) Beginning his career in 1972 as an adult basic educator teacher in northern Saskatchewan and northern Alberta, in 1975 Allan helped

31656_Clausen-black.indd 331

20-06-11 13:19

332 Contributors

to found the Regina Plains Community College and became a community developer and the a b e director. He was coordinator of e s l and basic education for the province’s Department of Continuing Education and, later, director of the University Affairs Office with the Saskatchewan Ministry of Advanced Education. Completing his doctoral studies at Northern Illinois University in 1997, he joined Penn State University as an associate professor and was involved in the establishment of a graduate centre in Pittsburgh as well as being the director of its graduate program in adult education. In 1997, he joined Saint Francis Xavier University in Nova Scotia as professor. He was chair of the Department of adult education, editor-in-chief of the Canadian Journal for the Study of Adult Education, editor of The Antigonish Review, and consulting editor for a number of other journals. Now retired and adjunct professor with both stf x university and Penn State, during his career he made presentations across Canada, the US, the UK, Australia, and New Zealand and has published extensively on adult literacy education.

Dan Robinson (St Francis Xavier University) Dr Robinson taught in public schools for more than ten years, acting primarily as a physical and health education teacher, outdoor education teacher, assistant principal, and field experiences associate (at the University of Alberta). After graduating in 2009 from the University of Alberta with a PhD in Secondary Education (Curriculum Studies, Physical Education), he accepted an appointment at St Francis Xavier University. Here, he has focused his research upon culturally relevant physical and health education, mentorship models within teacher education, international service learning, and action research for teacher development. He has published numerous refereed articles in these fields, and his most recent work has been two edited books: Teaching Physical Education Today: Canadian Perspectives, published in 2013 by Thompson Educational Publishing, and Social Justice in Physical Education: Critical Perspectives and Pedagogies for Change, published in 2016 by Canadian Scholars’ Press.

Manu Sharma (Thompson Rivers University) Dr Manu Sharma is an assistant professor at Thompson Rivers University in Kamloops, British Columbia, where she teaches foundational

31656_Clausen-black.indd 332

20-06-11 13:19

Contributors 333

courses in the master’s of education program. Dr Sharma has previously taught a variety of undergraduate and graduate courses and supported field placements at Brock University, University of Toronto, University of Windsor, and University of Wisconsin–River Falls; in addition, she has worked for the Toronto District School Board and in international settings as a public educator. Her research interests and publications in the field of teacher education are based on equity initiatives, teacher development, social justice pedagogy, deficit thinking, and international teaching experiences. Her work has been published in Canadian and US journals, including the Journal of the Scholarship of Teaching, Education and Urban Society, Alberta Journal of Educational Research, and Learning Landscapes, and she has contributed to books such as Voices from the Margins: Conversations about Schooling, Social Justice and Diversity and Becoming Teacher: Sites for Teacher Development in Canadian Teacher Education.

Majd Zouda (OISE ) Majd Zouda is a PhD candidate in science education at the Ontario Institute for Studies in Education, University of Toronto. Her doctoral dissertation focuses on s t e m programs in independent schools in Canada. Majd holds a b sc in microbiology and an m s c in medical microbiology. Prior to pursuing a PhD degree, she worked as a high school science teacher and the head of the junior science department in an international school in Damascus, Syria. For her doctoral research, she has received a sshrc doctoral fellowship (Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council) and was awarded an Ontario Graduate Scholarship (o g s ). Majd has been actively involved in publications regarding socio-scientific and stse issues, stem education, and student activism.

31656_Clausen-black.indd 333

20-06-11 13:19

31656_Clausen-black.indd 334

20-06-11 13:19

Index

academic audience, 278, 279 accountability, 136, 216, 224, 272 accreditation, 199 action in action research: classroom teaching and learning, 34, 142; curriculum development, 209; curriculum planning, 143; lesson plans, 65, 71, 180, 202, 213; outcomes-based learning projects, 109, 148, 166, 196, 201, 202; transformative curriculum, 85, 114, 160, 161, 243 Action Learning-Action Research Association (alara), 9 action plan, 26, 29, 39, 330 action plan/planning, 24, 26, 31, 74, 93; case study on, 17, 30, 71, 153, 179, 197, 209, 303; collaboration, 155–245; definition of, 177, 214, 290; developing, 234; educational change, 78, 121, 214; environment controversies, 331; focus on practice, 103, 196, 205; individualism, 185, 272, 300; ongoing: conversation, 271, 277; political struggle, 312; professional development, 27, 100,

31656_Clausen-black.indd 335

108; in reading research, 101, 107, 108, 320; reflective practice, 8, 220, 221, 222, 230, 231, 288; resistance to, 240; school improvement, 104, 108, 121; school-wide, 118, 214; time for, 88, 105, 107, 121, 135, 213, 235, 289, 320 action research: activist citizenship, 173, 185, 186; area of focus for, 196; article, sample, 7, 34, 51–3, 118, 279, 323–4, 332; autoethnographic, 147–9; case studies, 6, 17, 30, 71, 153, 179, 197, 109, 303; celebrating, 146; checklist for, 127; collaborative inquiry, 155–245; collaborator, 180, 244, 314; course, 62, 79, 81, 82, 91, 120, 330; definition of, 177, 214, 290; democratic dialogue, 39; educational change, 78, 121, 214; educational reform, 159, 214; emancipatory, 56–9, 173, 175, 176, 182, 186, 307, 322; ethics in, 8, 80, 82, 271, 272, 275, 279; ethnographic, 35, 36, 162, 179, 190, 330; evaluating,

20-06-11 13:19

336 Index

65, 160, 174, 203, 300; fad, 14, 104, 107, 109; goals, curricular, 42; goals, learning, 217, 238, 240; goals, project, 195, 200, 224, 225, 300; goals, research, 40, 49, 176, 234, 242; goals, school, 212; grants for, 9, 30, 90, 91, 307, 325; improving practice, for, 4, 101, 104, 108, 249; living inquiry, 4; models, instructional, 30, 56, 60, 64; orientation to inquiry, 4; origins, 309, 312; ­outcome of change, 109, 196–8, 255, 320; outcome of learning, 148, 212, 214; practical and emancipatory, 56, 59, 172–6, 312; practical application, 5, 57, 58, 173, 223, 249; practice, in, 4, 79, 205, 207; practice, research in, 27, 104, 110, 168, 236, 246; rationale for, 128, 306; relevance of, 29, 128, 214, 215; sharing findings, 24, 113, 119, 121, 156, 201, 321, 325; sharing power, 86, 135, 136, 234; team approach, 155; theory and practice, 43, 82, 116, 128, 289, 293, 328; voice to educators, 91; writing up, 277. See also action plan action research and Indigenous peoples, 123–37 action research and pre-service teachers, 55, 69, 74, 90, 94, 119, 171–89 action research interacting spiral, 48; Stringer’s, 214 Action Research of the Americas (a r na ), 9 action research validity, criteria for, 79, 149, 295, 320

31656_Clausen-black.indd 336

adult literacy, 18–31, 332 antecedents/consequences analysis, 307 area of focus, 196 artifacts, 89, 197, 203 assumptions, taken for granted, 101, 105, 271, 294, 298, 313 Canadian Association for Teacher Education (c ate), 48, 323 Canadian Association of Action Research in Education (c a a r e), 8, 48, 134, 323 Canadian Journal of Action Research (c ja r ), 7, 10, 48, 53, 69, 134, 244, 321, 323 case studies: action research design, 6, 17, 179; delivery model, 30 catalytic validity, 295 change, educational, 78, 121, 214 change agents, 85, 185 children, engagement, 41–3, 87–8, 114–17, 163–5 coding for data analysis, 228; demographic, 197 collaboration, 155–245 collaborative action research, 155–245 Collaborative Action Research Network (c a r n), 9 commitment: critical reflection, 185; data-sharing, 156; educators, 108, 160–2, 220–6, 291, 320; level of, 156, 278, 281; social justice, 172, 176, 273; teachers, 83, 235; volunteer, 19 communication: network, 14, 143, 163, 251; technological, 33, 35, 41–4 confidentiality, 302

20-06-11 13:19

Index 337

consent, informed, 177, 179 contemplation, 56 control group, 102 Council of Ministers of Education Canada, 22 critical action research, 7, 56–8, 84 critical friends, 214 critical reflection, 4, 78–9, 85, 185, 255, 294 data analysis, 86, 120, 197, 201–2, 220, 295, 320 data collection: considerations, 79, 86, 102, 115, 163, 234, 242–5, 275; cycles, 87, 196, 201, 216– 18, 234–5; informed decisionmaking, 104; observation, and, 120, 240. See also data analysis data sources, 51, 64–70, 85, 156, 197, 234 democratic: action research (par ) as, 161, 162, 261; assessments, 68; decision-making, 33, 157, 234; dialogue, 39, 277, 307 dialogical, 33–45, 310 dialogue: critical, 291, 301; equals, of, 234, 293, 300, 314; generative, 219, 290; reflection and, 85, 254, 255, 258 documents: curriculum, 14, 171, 174; information/working, 89, 224 Dr Stirling McDowell Foundation for Research into Teaching, 123–37 educational change, 78, 212, 214 educational knowledge, 77 educational leadership, 157, 211, 214

31656_Clausen-black.indd 337

educational research, 6, 150, 245, 307, 312 empowerment, 7, 23, 118, 160, 222 epistemology, 127, 167, esl, 34, 35, 330, 332 ethics, xiv, 80, 82, 271–82 ethnographic, 35, 36, 162, 179, 330 evaluation: of proposed solutions, 64, 112; step in cycle, 4, 100, 156; of support practices, 65, 105 evidence, 4, 5, 8, 69, 88, 229; of a r legitimacy, 48, 78, 194; creation of, 23, 319; to inform, 97, 101, 106, 183, 184, 217, 226, 250, 321 experience, lived: children, 163; own, 143, 251, 257–65, 299, 300 experiment, 13, 19, 30, 38, 43, 102, 124, 217 feedback, 81, 83, 104, 120, 127, 184; to inform, 116, 156, 212, 223, 235, 295 field notes, 64–70, 162, 180, 293, 294 fieldwork, 316 films, 280 freedom, xii, 7, 100, 256, 257; ­academic, 331 generalizability, 97, 148 grants for action research, 9, 30, 90, 91, 307, 325 guidelines, 133, 211; ethical, 272 Indigenization, 123–37 individual, as action researcher, 97–157 individual action research, 157

20-06-11 13:19

338 Index

interpretation of data. See data analysis intervention, 36, 55, 60, 64, 149, 176, 196, 238, 290; exploratory, 257; instructional, 100, 259, 260; performative, 254 journals: action research, for, 9, 52, 61, 148, 162, 321, 326; reflective, 64, 70; student, 100 learning community, 8, 10, 38–44, 116, 155, 206, 214, 228, 322 Lewin, Kurt, 5, 6, 14, 172, 182, 213, 226–7, 319, 322 literature review, 51 Manitoba Education Research Network (m ern ), 78, 89 mathematics, 232–45 model, action research, 17, 181 motivation, 144, 297 multiliteracies, 33–45; pedagogies, 33, 36, 43 Musgrave, Deanna, 279–81 negotiation for implementing action research plan, 157, 182, 186, 235, 241, 264, 272 networking, 63, 134 networks: dissemination, 104, 244; literacy, 116; physical education, 63; research and communication, 9, 14, 177, 251, 310; s tem , 177 observation, direct: data source, 64–70, 83, 89, 103, 225, 238, 240; professional development, 14, 234; by participant observer,

31656_Clausen-black.indd 338

162–5; persistent practice, 120, 197, 204 online learning, problems in: meetings, 196; resources, 105, 239, 244; surveys/questionnaires, 70, 89 open-ended processes, 178, 186, 292 openness, xi, 147–9, 163 outcomes, students’ benefit and, 89, 109, 115, 148, 196–8, 201, 212 outcome validity of research, xiii, xiv, 26, 78 participatory action research, 240–315 peer debriefing credibility, 86 personal experience connection to findings, 50 personal knowledge, xiv photographs, 279 physical education, 48–76 portfolios, 68, 84, 327 practical action research, 57, 58, 173, practitioner inquiry, 79 problem-solving approach, 27 professionalism, teacher, 119, 241 professional learning, 67, 88, 121, 194–207, 211–18, 233, 238, 243; and development, 92, 206 professional learning community, 56, 106, 108, 109 qualitative data, 85, 195, 233 qualitative research, 150, 233, 275, 305, 328 questionnaires, 64–70, 89, 127, 235, 238

20-06-11 13:19

Index 339

rapport-building, 176, 184, 187, 188 reading: achievement, 88, 99, 109, 261; adult literacy, 16–31; multiliteracies, 33–45; scholarly, 78, 88, 113, 117, 124, 137, 212, 224, 296, 320 realization of need, 20, 33 reflective practice, 8, 220, 221–2, 288 reflective practitioner, 98, 103, 115, 222 reflexivity, confirmability checking and critical, 160, 275 relational, 158–66, 175, 254, 258–9, 264, 315 reporting, xii, xiv, 67, 179, 235, 260 research. See action in action research; action plan/planning; action research research group: teacher, 78, 89, 90, 203; collaborative, 233 research questions, 80, 116, 196, 201, 234, 242, 260 research validity, 79, 149, 295, 320 resistance to change, 240, 254, 255, 263–5 rigour, xiv, 227, 320 rituals, 159, 313 Rogers, M., 279–86 Saskatchewan Action Research Network (sarn ), 23, 28 school improvement, 121, 216, 324 scientific method, 103 scientific research, 275 self-assessment, 85, 202 self-education, 312

31656_Clausen-black.indd 339

self-esteem, teacher, 119, 144 self-reflection, 67. See also reflective practice shared vision, 155 sport pedagogy, 48–69 standardized tests, 300 statistics, 102, 233, 236 Statistics Canada, 16, 17, 22, 23, 130 Stenhouse, L., 6, 82, 91, 213 students’: action research projects, 61, 78, 82; agency, 41, 174, 267; critical consciousness, 85, 162, 265, 326; knowledge, 60, 68, 78, 114, 118, 149, 147, 155, 177, 197, 217, 296; learning styles, 175, 185; participation, 161 surveys, student, 65–9, 89, 101, 120 teacher education, 64–7, 77–8, 171–89, 233, 251, 288–303; trends in, 8, 112, 195 teacher federations, 9 teacher-researchers, 37, 43, 83, 97, 115, 133, 160, 235, 294, 320 teachers: as creative practitioners, 327; as reflective practitioners, 98, 103, 115, 222; as researchers, 53, 63, 99–109 testing, 6, 69, 77, 102 tests, standardized, 131, 132, 166 time: for action planning, 26, 40, 101, 105; for action research, 202, 213, 218, 222, 235, 243, 262, 298; as barrier, 104, 106, 256, 165, 188, 202, 239, 259, 279, 320; release, 88, 90, 107, 121, 196, 234, 289

20-06-11 13:19

340 Index

triangulation, 83 Twitter, 67, 130, 178 validation of learning, xii, 64 validity, 79, 149, 295, 320 values realized as practice, xiii, 121, 127, 161, 175, 250, 272, 308; (p )a r fundamental, 161, 167

31656_Clausen-black.indd 340

variables in research, 6, 214, 298 verification procedures, 344 virtual meeting, 90 writing up action research, 277

20-06-11 13:19