My school has recently encouraged teachers
who are interested to do so to carry out some classroom action research. Therefore I
thought this would be a good time to re-visit the theoretical background of
this particular approach to education research. As with all educational
research, classroom action research (CAR) begins with a problem, a lack of
knowledge, or a desire to improve. This begins the process of formulating a
research question.
A criticism of educational research has been that it is
non-cumulative and fails to build on previous research (Hargreaves, 2007),
something Boote and Beile (2005) argued it must do if it is to be useful and
meaningful. I feel that this applies equally to classroom action research,
which should ultimately include a literature review setting out the theoretical
and / or methodological context for the research undertaken.
It is sometimes suggested that there is a large gap between
educational research and education as practiced by teachers. However, Broekkamp
and van Hout-Wolters (2007) noted that while the perceived gap between
educational research and practice may not be as big as some commentators
suggest, a commonly advocated solution to the problem is more ‘action research’
by teachers. Action research is usually carried out by practitioners to reflect
upon, investigate and improve their own practice (Bassey, 2007; Kemmis, 2007).
Explicit links should be made between the design frame (in
this case action research), the theory
and the methodology during the planning stages. Although action research is
often viewed as being focused mainly on practice, Brydon-Miller et al. (2003)
see practice and theory as a duality, each informing the other, but also note
that much remains to be done in articulating strong theoretical foundations for
action research. The objects of study in action research are educational
practices, and specifically practices as informed, committed actions, or praxis
(Kemmis, 2007). A variety of data collection and analysis techniques may be
used within action research, although interpretivist approaches (e.g.
interviews or observation) are more common than positivist, experimental ones
(Kemmis, 2007). The key method of action research is a “spiral of
self-reflection” (Kemmis, 2007, p.175), comprising planning, acting, observing
and reflecting. It has been pointed out, however, that these cyclic processes
rarely follow each other in a simple, systematic way (Halai, 2011), so teachers
engaging in action research should be prepared for this, and given appropriate
support.
Action research is an appropriate design frame for
educational research in my work context, providing both a sound theoretical
basis and a strong practice element.
References:
Bassey, M.
(2007). On the kinds of research in educational settings, in Hammersley, M.
(ed.). Educational Research and Evidence-based Practice, London, Sage in
association with The Open University
Boote, D.N. and Beile, P. (2005). Scholars before researchers: On
the centrality of the dissertation literature review in research preparation. Educational
Researcher, 34, 6, pp.3-15
Broekkamp, H.
and van Hout-Wolters, B. (2007). The gap between educational research and
practice: A literature review, symposium, and questionnaire. Educational
Research and Evaluation, 13, 3, pp.203-220
Brydon-Miller,
M., Greenwood, D. and Maguire, P. (2003). Why action research? Action
Research, 1, 1, pp.9-28
Halai, N.
(2011). How teachers become action researchers in Pakistan: emerging patterns
from a qualitative metasynthesis. Educational Action Research, 19, 2,
pp. 201-214
Hargreaves,
D.H. (2007). Teaching as a research-based profession: possibilities and
prospects (The Teacher Training Agency Lecture 1996), in Hammersley, M. (ed.). Educational
Research and Evidence-based Practice, London, Sage in association with The
Open University
Kemmis, S.
(2007). Action research, in Hammersley, M. (ed.). Educational Research and
Evidence-based Practice, London, Sage in association with The Open
University
