ACTION RESEARCH
THE PARAMETERS OF MENTORSHIP
James Ellsworth, Grand Erie District School Board
Origins and Rationale
In September 1999, I became Program Coordinator responsible for Assessment and Accountability in the Grand Erie District School Board. This put me in a position to investigate further the role of “critical friend” or mentor in the process of Action Research. Before this, I had been head of History and teacher consultant for the past five years. As such, I participated in Action Research whereby I worked on topic with a team and had the help of “critical friends” each time. One such project was to promote integration between specialists (Math, Science and English) who were teaching a non-specialist subject (Self and Society) in the high school. During that time, two administrators were my “critical friends” and helped overcome barriers with advice and by providing release time for the teachers. Another time I worked with two elementary curriculum consultants who were “co-critical friends” while I incorporated Multiple Intelligences into a Medieval History unit in a Grade 11 class. This year, because of an initiative of my predecessor (Diane Morgan) and my superintendent (Jacqueline Delong), I became the co-facilitator of a project by elementary teachers and support staff to improve student learning through corrective feedback after analysing the results of EQAO testing. If I was going to be a facilitator/mentor and “critical friend” myself in this system project, then there were a few issues I wanted to investigate.
The term “critical friend” has been bothersome to me ever since I was introduced to Action Research. I did understand this stakeholder’s role in the process; namely, to be a sounding-board, authenticator, and advisor to the researcher and his/her work (McNiff, Lomax, & Whitehead, pp. 30, 43). While it may seem like a semantic problem, I had a bias against the word “critical”. The original intent of this term may have been to connote honesty, an ability to give and take both the good and the bad. However, for me, the word always seemed to put the relationship on an unequal footing, giving judgemental power to the friend. My first question: Was I being sensitive or was there something in a word?
Another concern dealt with the scope of a project and whether the degree or size influenced the effectiveness of the “critical friend” role. A particular project that I was engaged in brought together elementary teachers who all had experience with the EQAO testing. I myself had little elementary experience (having been a secondary teacher before my present role) and none with EQAO. As well, it was a large project involving nine teachers from four schools and four support staff. My second question: Were numbers and experience a limit to the efficacy of a project?
Finally, I wanted to look carefully at the elements of rapport which are crucial to friend/mentor’s relationship. I was presenting myself to nine experienced elementary teachers and their coordinator. They had not chosen me; I was an outsider. My third question: What were the chief operational factors in being an effective friend/mentor?
The Project
The project was well designed. Funding was provided that included training in the Action Research process, resources (i.e., journals, articles, computer labs, support groups), monthly release time for the participants, professional development with Ruth Sutton on corrective action, a forum to share findings, and opportunities for presentations and professional growth.
The participants were all teachers from Grade 3 or 4, and Grade 6 or 7. In other words, they worked as teams or pairs with students who had just completed the EQAO test the previous year and with students who were about to take the test in 2000. A support person was assigned to each of these groups. The co-facilitators arranged agendae and resources for each meeting. The intent was not only to evaluate the effect of corrective feedback on specific foci (such as for problem-solving, explanation of answers, or gender-related motivation), but also to develop team and school-wide approaches to EQAO testing rather than just specific Grade 3 or 6 teachers and students.
Opportunities for sharing and expanding networks presented themselves throughout the project. For instance, I was able to deliver an interim finding to the Ontario Educational Research Council (O.E.R.C.) in December, to present (along with two teachers) our project to an Action Research conference in February; and my colleague aligned our study with an EQAO project with Nipissing University and Nipissing Parry Sound Catholic D.S.B. in December.
Focus Questions
Since I was co-running a larger project than I had ever done before and was completely out of my “comfort zone” and experience, I wanted to concentrate on the following question:
- What are the qualities of a “critical friend” or mentor that help to develop effective rapport and support to a project?
- What are the lessons to learn from the scope of a project which might affect the role?
- What elements can offset the “outsider” factor to help create credibility and trust?
Process and Evidence
Jackie Delong, our superintendent and Action Research supporter, was instrumental in encouraging the gathering of qualitative evidence. Usually I felt that the gathering of statistics and poll percentages would give strength and credibility to the research. However, I came to appreciate the value of the primary documentation found in the interview, the journal, observations, candid conversations and e-mail. Each week I would enter reflections (reflective practice) in a journal. Each month, after our release time sessions, I would include some observed or verbal feedback from the participants about my support. During presentation opportunities, I would make a point of including observed and verbal feedback about my assistance. Once I had developed the focus questions, I also dragged pertinent comments from e-mail to my Action Research folder to develop a running bank of statements germane to the research. One evening, I presented the topic of “`Critical friend’: its role in the process” to an Action Research support group and found the ensuing discussion very helpful. Finally, I conducted an interview with one participant and asked for feedback on an e-mail questionnaire to twelve others on the project team (succumbing to the need for a poll). Other colleagues contributed with an occasional picture or video tape which I was able to analyse as “other” evidence.
Findings
First of all, “critical friend” has many guises. In my experience, the people who filled that role were administrators acting as sounding boards and problem solvers for my project. They were able to be involved directly with me as they tried to help improve my practice. My role in this project was further removed from the position of direct confidante and trouble shooter than I had traditionally taken. In another project my “critical friends” were system support staff conducting their own research and I was an extension of their work, so that we shared and discussed as equal partners. In fact, the present project, Improving student learning with corrective feedback based on EQAO results, was organized in a similar fashion so that the participants were in pairs and, in effect, providing their built-in “critical friends” on site.
Question a: What are the qualities of a “critical friend” or mentor that help to develop effective rapport and support to a project?
Evidence shows that the key qualities to develop effective rapport and support as a project facilitator, or indeed as any “critical friend”, are those that provide commitment, communication, and constructive support.
Several practitioners admitted that commitment to partners was more important than the commitment to the project or research. In other words, the personal was more important than the functional. Projects would get completed but the supportive personal style was paramount.
In communication, it was important to have an ability to listen and respond to needs rather than trying to impress with expertise. Relating knowledge and experience worked better if it was to soothe, give permission for anxieties, or offer solutions as trial possibilities and not to represent oneself as omniscient. Thus relating to the team as facilitator means leadership tempered with a large portion of empathy.
For constructive support, a project team needs clear agendas, smooth logistics, a good working environment, available resources, and sensitivity to their workload and needs when setting deadlines and tasks. As well, flexibility and resourcefulness is needed to provide ways and means to achieve success.
Fortunately, the gathered evidence suggests that I have those qualities:
“…they were particularly relieved by your statements indicating that they should not try to do it all at once…” (interview)
“…having someone who will listen, no matter what is stressing him out at that particular time, was very helpful…” (interview)
“…your quiet, reflective, informed, intelligent, unbiased [treating people respectfully and equally] manner encourages people to grow…” (e-mail response to questionnaire)
“…willing to share personal experiences and frustrations …you just did that…” (e-mail response to questionnaire)
“…helped me to clarify how my project had been going to date and to see that yes, I was actually getting somewhere with it…” (interview)
But there is one other quality that seems important, the ability to put people at ease and to be disarming with a sense of humour. To be less is to err on the side of the functional rather than the personal:
“…I found you very easy to talk to and I felt that I got to know a little bit about you through our chats…” (comments during a monthly meeting)
Question b: What are the lessons to learn from the scope of a project which might affect the role?
The size of a project can affect the role of the facilitator and even the ability of the “critical friend”. We shared nine teachers with two co-facilitators and assigned support staff. The breadth of the school district (three amalgamated boards) and regional sampling of school teams made it difficult to get to everyone on a regular basis.
“…you cannot hope to establish any kind of working rapport if the group is too large. As we only met on a monthly basis as well, it would be difficult to get any kind of rapport going…” (comment made during an interview and in questionnaire response)
Some felt that a group of nine was about the limit of a group and only worked because they had a paired team mate at school. At one of those monthly meetings, I confided with one participant about my frustration in not having more regular contact with everyone. Her response was quick and simple:
“…maybe just choose a couple of people to concentrate on for that extra attention…”
Question c: What elements can offset the “outsider” factor to help create credibility and trust?
A friend of mine once said that if you can’t do something well yourself, find someone who can. Part of establishing credibility and trust as an “outsider” was to do just that. We arranged to bring in a “guru” on corrective feedback to provide professional development for the group. Another caveat is not to minimize one’s related experiences, but to go forward with confidence and vulnerability. Being experienced with presentations and offering to help anyone who wanted to try an opportunity (Action Research Conference, February 2000) instilled a trust and confidence beyond my lack of experience with EQAO or elementary teaching. If numbers are a quantitative illustration, I had no one who was willing to present our project with me in December. However, two in February and two others in June did share presentations with me, and four presented on their own in October at the Professional Development Day. Watching me “prove” myself by hosting a Japanese Action Research delegation in December, and arranging a visit from corrective feedback expert, Ruth Sutton, in February allowed other stakeholders to see my willingness to do what I asked them to attempt. As well, having been published for Action Research in the past and sharing my article with them gave me a certain reputation for knowing of what I spoke.
Sharing
We shared the results of the project in process at Action Research conferences in December and February. We also shared our findings with our Board trustees in June and with a collaborative extension of our project in North Bay. All participants wrote summary papers and agreed to have them “published” on the website for Ontario Action Research (OAR). And I have presented to a local support network (May) and will present to the Ontario Education Research Committee (OERC) in December.
Related Theory
At the Action Research Conference in Brantford (February 2000), I talked about my research topic with Dr. Susan Drake of Brock University. She forwarded a draft paper, “Relationship as a sustaining force in collaborative Action Research: Two facilitators’ stories” (Drake & Haskins), which stated that:
Recommendations by Drake & Haskins |
What Occurred in this project |
| “…the main ingredient for our successful collaboration was the building and sustaining of the relationships involved…” | We did succeed at collaboration |
| “…they needed someone with some experience in the practical implementation of action research methods…” | I was able to offer that and provide resources. |
| “…working together with parity…” | Vulnerability and recognizing their expertise illustrated parity |
| “…dialogue was the centrepiece … it implies sharing and mutuality…” |
The monthly sessions and dialogue were key to the team project, as well as providing opportunities to share the findings with others |
| “…an evolving sense of vision rather than a set of inflexible goals…” | We became more committed to corrective feedback and whatever it took to improve student learning |
| “…facilitator is a shifting role, sometimes organizer, other times, theorist, researcher, ‘critical friend’…” | I learned to give more permission to the larger role of facilitator rather than mentor |
| “…as an outsider, one can raise challenging and naïve questions that promote teacher and research reflections…” | The group allowed me to ask the questions that forced them to articulate their views. |
Lessons Learned
While looking into the semantics of the word “critical”, I found the following quotation from a brochure: “…criticism is not a relationship-building word. And no matter how we combine it with words like constructive or honest, it is still a hard pill to swallow. A close look will reveal that feedback is a much better relationship-building word.” I would concur with this interpretation.
Just as the team of researchers was investigating corrective feedback to improve their practice and their students’ learning, I came to realize the importance of feedback for the role of facilitator.
- I have grown in confidence.
- I have given myself permission to deal with elements out of my comfort zone.
- I feel that the term “feedback friend” is the term that best describes the role and process.
- I have learned not to judge myself too harshly about the quality of my contributions to colleagues’ efforts.
- I have learned the value of qualitative evidence in the pursuit of knowledge.
Next Steps
I will conduct another Action Research project with a smaller group to see if it is optimum for facilitator, participant and feedback friend. I plan to conduct an Action Research initiative whereby I will introduce portfolios as the ultimate assessment tool to a team of six – three elementary and three high school teachers.
References
McNiff, J., Lomax, P., & Whitehead, J. (1996). You and your action research project. London: Routledge.
Drake, S. & Haskins, B. Relationship as a sustaining force in collaborative action research: Two facilitators' stories. Unpublished