Editorial

SUPPORTING THE PROCESS

Cheryl Black and Peter Rasokas

Previous editorials have described the process of action research and the importance of the process as a means of improving professional practice. Another important consideration is support; the method for supporting teachers engaged in the action research process from the initial design of their question to the final writing of projects like those included in this issue.

Picture this - twenty people sitting in a darkened room listening to two presenters. The first is pointing to an overhead screen and beaming as she explains her process of improving the math attitudes of her students. Heather Knill-Griesser made a difference! Her students showed a significant change in attitude resulting in problems being tackled with more confidence and enthusiasm. Consequently, more problems were solved. The second presenter chose a different style to communicate her project. In a dialogue with Peter Rasokas, one of the editors of this issue, Lori Weins described the results of engaging parents in the process of teaching the new math curriculum.

Another scene - an early morning coffee shop just outside of Brantford. Janet Trull is describing her excitement of knowing she made a difference and her enjoyment of analyzing and writing her final article. Both meetings resulted in the articles included in this issue. How did we get there? Why did Heather, Janet and Lori finish their projects? Why did they start in the first place? How do they know they made a difference?

The editors of this issue have spent the last year facilitating action research in our respective areas of the Grand Erie District School Board. Inviting teachers to participate is one step. However, engaging teachers in the complete process over a longer period of time is a different proposition and researchers require a certain amount of support.

What does the support look like? We learned that certain factors are necessary. The first factor is encouraging participants to begin writing as early in the process as possible. Our action researchers’ writing took two forms--the process and the product. Process writing is journal writing and occurred on a daily basis. Situations and observations were recorded while the facts were still fresh to ensure accuracy. However, drawing together particular threads or stories and writing about progress to date helped participants realize the changes they had made or the product at each stage. The periodic evaluation also enabled them to assess whether their current methods were, in fact, having the desired effect.

The second factor for providing support is booking regular meetings. Every three or four weeks, our participants met to share their progress. This was an opportunity to have their stories validated—examined and given "the phenomenological nod"(Van Manen, 1990). Although group members were not present during specific situations described, being able to recognize the experience as one they could have had still provides credible validation. The other benefit of regular meetings is the wealth of knowledge and experience available to all participants. We experienced a very positive exchange of ideas and encouragement at meetings.

Engaging willing teachers is the first step. As Heather, Janet, and Lori designed their own research questions, they were considering one of their own values dealing with education. Choosing their own areas for improving their practice gave them ownership of the project. Providing opportunities for them to share their progress with others meant that they were encouraged to continue to a logical end point of their choice.

As the three papers describe, being encouraged to choose their areas for improvement engaged Heather, Janet, and Lori in the process. As they saw improvements at various stages of their work, they were encouraged to continue and the comments and observations of other people connected with the project validated that they did, in fact, make a difference!

The editors of this issue have both engaged in their own projects and continue to tackle new ways of improving our practice. The opportunity to help colleagues learn to trust their own knowledge and experience was thrilling and was achieved due to the provision of active support. By encouraging a climate of enquiry, we have enabled three more practitioners to add to the body of knowledge about improved teacher practice.

In This Issue

Heather Knill-Griesser is an elementary teacher in Brantford. She has written an article about her attempt to improve the ability of her elementary students to solve math problems. Her goal was to design a complete math program that she hoped would improve students’ attitudes towards math and, consequently, their success in solving math problems.

Janet Trull is an early literacy itinerant teacher with the Grand Erie District School Board. Her article describes her implementation of Reading Recovery, an internationally acclaimed program, with "at-risk" grade one students.

Lori Weins has worked closely with her vice principal to dedicate parents in the new mathematics curriculum. Her focus was to determine whether engaging parents in the process would improve student learning.

Resources

Van Manen, Max. (1990). Researching lived experience, London, Ontario: Althouse Press.