MESSINESS IN ACTION RESEARCH: A TRANSFORMATIONAL EXPERIENCE

Eva MacKenna

This paper presents my initial experience using action research during the pre-service teacher education program at Nipissing University, 1998/99. Primarily, the article describes the relative messiness (Cook, 1998) involved in developing my research question and my research plan. Although confusion and frustration were parts of the process, I experienced a transformation in my thinking about the inclusion of special needs students that placed the student, rather than the teacher, at the centre of consideration and that integrated my past career experiences with my new career as a teacher.

As I prepared to enter the B.Ed. program, I was thirsty for knowledge about how to enable students to reach their full potential. It was clear that in the eight-months available at the faculty of education, there would be insufficient time to answer all of my questions that had developed over the years from the perspective both as a parent, and as a professional in education-related fields. We all have questions and ideas, fleeting or thoughtful, but how does one find time to pursue answers. The action research project at Nipissing University provided an opportunity to address these questions at least in part.

Participation in the project was voluntary and provided both intrinsic and extrinsic motivations. The intrinsic motivation was to investigate issues and ideas related to questions that were important to me. The extrinsic motivation was a letter that would augment my professional portfolio indicating that I had been involved in a special research project.

My immediate impression as I walked into the first scheduled action research meeting was somewhere between excitement and intimidation. The group was large. I saw this as a statement of the dedication, enthusiasm, and heart, which, in my opinion, characterizes the teaching profession. This introductory meeting gave participants an overview of the intent of the project, an opportunity to meet the faculty who would be coordinating the research, and a venue for asking questions. The prominent question on the minds of most of the students was, "What amount of time commitment is expected?" An open-ended answer was provided, "It depends on your topic and commitment."

As part of the project, we were asked to think about accessing personal support for our research in the form of a "critical friend." (McNiff, 1998) The critical friend would have to be someone we trusted who could provide objective criticism and support throughout the project. I immediately decided that I would approach my sister-in-law, Maureen, to be my critical friend since she was also in the field of education. As an educator, she had made a commitment to lifelong learning and would accept me taking on yet another role. She also had very different career experiences in comparison to mine, but I was certain that we would have some very interesting exchanges.

Maureen had taught in elementary schools both in Nova Scotia and in isolated Northern Ontario Communities. She now held an administrative position with a northern education authority. I could see two benefits from this. Her position required her to remain current and her kind nature would encourage me to remain grounded in practicalities. The difficulty would be in the inability to meet personally because approximately 1000 kilometers of Northern Ontario separated us. Maureen agreed with some hesitation because she was concerned about what she could offer. I suggested that her introduction to action research, and lack of experience in this area, would provide unbiased input and that we would journey through the process, together.

We were asked to keep a journal during the process. I was not very comfortable with this requirement because I had not maintained a journal since I pursued my first college diploma in 1972 in the Mental Retardation Residential Counselor Program. It is strange how memories are conjured up even looking at the title of that program. Mental retardation is such an archaic term and generates feelings of discomfort even today!

I began by revisiting the journal that I had kept so long ago including accompanying sketches and photos. It provided me with two necessary pieces of evidence that I would need to move forward in making a commitment to my action research as a preservice teacher candidate. First, it allowed me to explore, in retrospect, the thoughts, feelings, and facts I had noted in those early years and so it validated the use of a journal. Second, it was evidence of my growth as a professional in the field of special education and the dramatic changes that had subsequently occurred in the field. We had moved from complete isolation and institutionalization to a more progressive, inclusive model. Now I knew that I wanted to contribute to the field of special education through my action research, and I could begin to reflect upon and record the process that my research would take in the months to come.

My objective for the next few months was to attempt to articulate a guiding question for my action research. With every assigned course reading and class, I saw the potential for exploring a wealth of new ideas. I knew that my interest was in students with exceptionalities and that I wanted to begin to develop some "best practices" for working with students with academic needs. Classroom placement opportunities would allow me to observe what inclusive education meant, and what it looked like in practice. I wanted to know what I could contribute both for students having mild learning difficulties, and for students identified by the Identification Placement and Review Committee (IPRC) process. Some possible questions included, "How does a teacher with an overflowing classroom include a student with exceptional needs? How does a teacher use the resources available to modify content and accommodate their needs?" Ultimately, I wanted to ask, "Who is responsible." I wanted hands on, direct and effective interaction, a tool kit to help students reach their full potential. Perhaps the etiology of the disability would not require matching each student with a specific strategy. Instead, there might be universal strategies that would positively affect many students struggling with learning difficulties in the regular classroom. I realized that solid theoretical knowledge would provide a basis for daily professional decision making by teachers. To reach the goal embodied in my research questions, I would need to become familiar with the theories and research that would support various approaches.

As I acquired knowledge of pedagogical practice at the faculty of education and blended it with the expertise I had acquired previously, the daily investigation encouraged me to be more productive as an action researcher. Thus, my initial guiding question emerged, "How can I as a teacher, blend what I know and what I learn of pedagogical practice to encourage the inclusive classroom?"

One article that was particularly useful was "Best academic practices for inclusive classrooms." (King-Sears, 1994). The article held my attention because students were identified as students first, and then as students with disabilities. This is a far more respectful approach. This author rated cooperative learning as a best practice. This prompted an additional question, "How can I create a co-operative classroom.

This article led me to reflect on my experience as a community college instructor where the institution strove to provide a range of programs and services for all students. This very innovative program enrolled adults with developmental disabilities into selected mainstream programs. In these programs, outcomes were reduced and there was a subsequent reduction in cognitive demands on the students. The intent was to provide an inclusive, age appropriate, academic environment that would lead to greater vocational opportunities. This reminded me of the elementary system where modified programs are offered in self-contained classrooms or within the mainstream class with reduced grade expectations.

At the college, support was offered for students with identified learning disabilities in the form of learning strategies that would increase the students' independence. It should be noted that the learning strategies approach does not focus as much on the content as on how to learn the content. In using this approach, students take control of their own learning and develop metacognitive learning strategies by being encouraged to think about their own thinking.

Prior experience in post-secondary education had introduced me to learning strategies; the "Best practices" article had identified learning strategies as second only to cooperative learning approaches in effectiveness, but I had not observed any systematic instruction of learning strategies at the elementary level. My assumption was that a student who had consistently faced learning difficulties through their early educational experiences, would have developed very poor, ineffective strategies for learning, and their self-esteem would have been diminished. It would follow logically, then, that teaching such students effective learning strategies would result in improved learning of the content and increased self-esteem.

Although, in my experience, post secondary institutions were implementing programs with this focus, I saw little evidence of systematic instruction in learning strategies at the elementary level. This gap became the focus of my action research. By reflecting and observing during the practicum, I was getting a clearer idea about the direction of my inquiry. I would investigate learning strategies and the elementary student.

In order to accomplish this, I needed to refine my research question. I spent a long time perusing the articles I had collected and looking at my journal entries, but I felt no closer to a starting point. I was feeling more incompetent and less of an action researcher. I should be planning how to conduct my study by this time. The interview with my faculty advisor was rapidly approaching but the critical research question was not perched on my lips.

I was experiencing waves of feelings alternating between control and chaos. I was once again in a state of chaos. Were others feeling as tentative as I was? Although regular meetings were held with all the participants and the faculty had provided support and fielded questions, I had been unable to articulate a clear research question, nor had I heard a question from other participants that would provide validity to my area of concern. And I was tired, very tired, by the time we gathered for the meetings in the evenings.

Finally, I found an article on action research, "A collaborative action research model for teacher preparation programs "(Keating et al., 1998). The article outlined the process that these preservice teachers had gone through. It seemed to provide me with an opportunity to realign my thinking because the article presented a common perspective, that of the pre-service teacher. It gave an example to which I could relate and it grounded me. I felt again in control, if only from my own perspective.

The interview with my faculty advisor arrived. I entered the meeting apprehensively with my journal, selected research articles, and collected data on learning strategies. I was expecting to leave feeling unsuccessful. Questions swirled through my mind, "Was this really useful to me? Why was I putting myself through this?"

Despite my trepidation, however, I would leave the meeting redeemed! My faculty advisor helped me to review my thoughts, validate my deeply held beliefs about inclusion, and focus on a smaller, more manageable, aspect of the topic. The most important element arising from this meeting was that I wanted the students to develop the skills to include themselves! Earlier, as a trial balloon, I had formed the question, "How can I, as a teacher, include students facing academic difficulties. But now, I felt the question was more appropriately oriented as, "How can I help the students include themselves?" I left with a tight package tucked under my arm and the "ultimate" research question.

Now, I felt ready to set out a teaching sequence for the learning strategies and formulate a plan for my next placement. I decided to identify students achieving at the lowest level of the Ontario Ministry of Education achievement standards, to observe their individual learning habits, and to interview individuals about areas of difficulty. I hoped that students would recognize some dissatisfaction with their current learning strategies and that this would, in turn, encourage them to make a commitment to trying new strategies. For my part, I would try to narrow down a specific observable behaviour that interfered with their learning. Then, I would concentrate my efforts during the three-week placement on working with a maximum of two or three students.

Once a student had been identified, I would select an appropriate learning strategy to address that student’s specific difficulty. The strategy would be introduced systematically through task analysis, modeling and verbal description, practice, prompting and reinforcement. Ultimately, I hoped that students would learn to initiate and provide their own support, but I also realized that verbal rehearsals, corrective feedback, and plenty of positive reinforcement would be necessary before teacher support could be gradually withdrawn. Now I had a plan of action that made sense, at least on paper.

When I arrived at the practicum setting, I found my first day was very busy and, although I did not have an organized format for my observations, I saw three students who were possible candidates. One student was already isolated from the rest of the class because of behaviour problems. Another displayed verbal outbursts, which centred on his inability to begin tasks. A third child had a physical disability, which presented tremendous difficulty in beginning activities and with transitions throughout the day.

I discussed my intent and my action research question with my associate teacher. Fortunately she supported and encouraged me. Now that a commitment had been made, I would not have an opportunity to turn away. Up until now my action research had been a very private endeavour, but now I had "gone public" and had to deal with it.

Due to organizational and situational circumstances, including illness and special assignment of students, I did not have the opportunity to move forward as much as I wished with the implementation of this phase of my action research. Needless to say, I was disappointed and felt that I had been able to collect little data on improvements in student learning.

However, using my journal, I was able to reflect extensively on the whole experience and particularly on how my thinking had evolved. It confirmed the need to develop a clear purpose for one’s action research, the value of collaboration, and the frustration that can be felt throughout the process. As a result of my participation in action research, I developed knowledge about and commitment to learning strategy instruction that I will continue to develop, implement, and evaluate in my future teaching opportunities.

What I learned was that action research can involve one in serious thinking about the role that the teacher plays in the education of children. I have learned that action research involves re-examining one’s values and past experiences to see how these relate to the present. When I presented my study, in March 1998, to a small group of my peers, my enthusiasm was evident, and I was pleasantly surprised to find that I had a tremendous amount of information and inspiration, to share. I talked about the substantial resources I had collected, and how I had incorporated, in an informal way, these findings into my own teaching philosophy and practice. My fellow researchers found my efforts interesting and it may have sparked some new directions in their own thinking and action research.

Although my initial attempt at action research was messy (Cook, 1998), I was both extrinsically and intrinsically rewarded by the experience. I had experienced tremendous growth as I realigned, for myself, the idea of what teaching and research can be.

References

Cook, Tina. (1998). The importance of mess in action research. Educational Action Research, 6 (1).

Keating, J., Diaz-Grenburg, R., Baldwin, M., & Thousand, J. (1998). A collaborative action research model for teacher preparation programs. Journal of Teacher Education, 46 (5), 381-389.

King-Sears, Margaret. (1994). Best academic practices for inclusive classrooms. Exceptional Children, 29 (7).

Bibiographical Note:

Name: Eva MacKenna
Academic Degrees: 1974 Developmental Service Worker Diploma, Cambrian College, Early Childhood Education, Humber College: 1994 Bachelor of Psychology, Waterloo University: 1999 Bachelor of Education, Nipissing University.
Current Research: I informally maintain my interest in Learning Strategies as I share my findings, and discuss the topic, at every chance I get. Formally I continue my research of Learning Strategies for the elementary student as I work towards my Master in Educational Studies at Nipissing University. The topic is broad, and my attempt is to refine my research of the Strategies.
Interests: The intended outcome is a practical tool that will encourage better incorporation of strategy instruction for the elementary student and/or teacher.