A TOOL FOR CHANGE: SUCCESSFUL COLLABORATIVE ON-SITE PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT

Dr. Thomas Ryan, Assistant Professor, Faculty of Education, Nipissing University

Introduction

“The potential for professional development can be at its most powerful in a context of change, particularly when teachers understand and are committed to the values that give meaning to change" (Rudduck, 1991, p. 91). However, change often brings with it more demands and teachers, attempting to change often realise that they need more time, more knowledge, and more skills to achieve desired outcomes. Changes can also increase the pace in what is already a busy profession. To slow the daily pace, at any given time in order to take a second look, requires educators to choose one path from many. For instance, one path of action, or means to slow the pace of education, is to partially repeat what has been done in the past while making changes in another area. Another path of action is to become more individualistic, thereby isolating yourself to ensure that you can cope with your own familiar responsibilities while attempting to change some aspect of their praxis. By choosing a path of action educators can erode the malaise of professional routinisation in order to reactivate a sense of vision.

Alternatively, Teachers feeling under siege may elect to enter into communicative action (Habermas, 1979) in order to discuss challenges in an attempt to build theory, support and boost morale. If teacher communicative actions are systematic and strategic then these can often be labelled ‘action research’. The action research mode allows educators to research their own practice in a manner that complements existing classroom-based commitments.
However, we are compelled to ask; why use action research in schools today? Quite simply, “ action research has the potential to improve education as does no educational innovation of the past century “ (McLean, 1995, p. 67). Action research is a means,

. . . to sort out not only one’s values, beliefs, motives, but also to give more attention to the analysis of the experiences of the classroom: new perceptions may lead to altered conceptions and reconstruals of aspects of the art of teaching . . . . reflection on one’s everyday professional world ‘seems an important entry to a deeper understanding of educational innovation and change. Through such reflection and revaluation the teacher may gain a clearer sense of the way in which the past shapes and informs possibilities for action in the present. (Rudduck, 1991, p. 94)

John Dewey explained that the valuing of the process of theorising is of primary importance, whilst the resulting definition is a secondary product of theorising and less important (Clandinin & Connelly, 1992). Action research is a means to get teachers involved in theorising and, following Dewey’s insight, it could be argued that the processes are more significant than the particular outcomes. The conversation can be considered the action (Feldman, 1999, p. 141) since “ it appears that conversation can play a significant role in the establishment and sustention of collaborative action research groups, and . . . can lead to the generation of new knowledge and understanding “. Where and when these conversations take place is of less importance. We must however endeavour to keep the conversation going.

In practice, what is written in curriculum documents and discussed in public forums is often very different from what occurs in classrooms. There are two levels of reality, the theory, and the practice of education. This perspective contrasts with the dialectic view of theory and practice put forward by McKeon (1952) and underscored in Connelly and Clandinin’s text entitled Teachers as Curriculum Planners (1988), where the authors insist that “ . . . practice is theory in action. There is no essential dichotomy “ (p. 95). This is the position adopted here: Theory and practice develop together, each informing the other. In essence, this is the position underpinning the action research approach to curriculum development and teacher education. Action research puts a high value on reflection and theorising as precursors to, and interactive with, curriculum action. Action research, like curriculum, is a process that brings about change; it is not just empty rhetoric or a definition game.

Take for example participants “ . . . in participatory action research [who] are joined by a thematic concern, that is, a commitment to inform and improve a particular practice “ (McTaggart, 1997, p. 30). We can then say that any examination of practice can be linked thematically to a commitment to inform and improve a particular practice or practices. Yet, it is not always easy to collaborate since teachers often work in isolation (Royal Commission on Learning, 1994), lack the time for communal reflection (Rudduck, 1991), and persevere in spite of limited preservice and inservice training. Hargreaves and Fullan, (1998) point out:

Teachers today need to do much more learning on the job, or in parallel with it - where they can constantly test out, refine and get feedback on the improvements they make. They need access to other colleagues to get learning from them. Schools are poorly designed for integrating learning and teaching on the job. The teaching profession must become a better learning profession. (p. 83)

The Experience

In one of my school-based studies data were collected over eight months via supportive discussion groups, individual interviews, classroom visitations, journals and documentation. This action research effort was a professional development experience that also facilitated ‘interactive professionalism’ as teachers worked in a small group and interacted frequently in the course of planning, testing new ideas, attempting to solve different problems, and assess the effectiveness of those ideas. In addition, this action research effort was strategic and systematic, to help educators attain a high degree of specific interactions, (personal interviews, group meetings, classroom observations, evidence collection). This series of deliberate and planned intentions helped participants deal with most, and confront some of the dilemmas they had encountered in practice.

The Commitment and the Needs

Our inquiry did require a series of commitments beyond each teachers normal workday. However, we developed an awareness and understanding of the need for more preservice and inservice training (time\opportunity). Participants in our study realised the need to overcome their compartmentalisation, individualism and isolation. This reality was mostly due to the design of their schedules, their school building and lack of common preparation times. Teachers agreed that they needed more preparation time, not less, since existing time was often filled with additional administrative, extracurricular and colleague classroom coverage obligations. Yet, in spite of the aforementioned, our inquiry supported and facilitated the transformation, improvement and enhanced understanding of certain praxes. As well, participants learned how to professionally develop themselves using an action research mode of inquiry that can further support teacher growth and development as necessary. Admittedly, teachers can always improve since teaching is something that is never mastered (Connelly & Clandinin, 1988). It is intrinsically challenging each day. Educational questions and educational contexts are too complex, uncertain and dynamic to be easily or finally answered. Indeed, one of the ideological commitments of the action researcher is that nothing is ever settled/answered/solved.

The Next Step

As a next step it seems natural to suggest that participants meet with other teachers to act, reflect and revise in order to improve their situations professionally and personally. Perhaps teacher performance appraisals (which are mandated) can be supported and augmented by these processes. The action research process provides a personal approach to both self and peer-appraisals in order to inform administration and other stakeholders about issues such as accountability. It becomes a radically different and professionally enhancing notion of accountability that could replace the current emphasis on prescription and control. Indeed, there is no area of education that cannot benefit from this mode of inquiry. Action research can be used to nurture an individual, a group, a school or an entire Board (Altrichter, Posch & Somekh, 1993; Hopkins, 1993; Russell, 1995).

Conclusions

In our study participants agreed that action research could reduce individualism and isolation. Action research promotes professional development and enriches educators as the conversations themselves were the “ ‘glue’ for maintaining the integrity of the group “ (Feldman, 1999, p. 129), and facilitated an openness to new possibilities. Indeed, upon becoming a member of a community of educators, each participant was empowered to initiate change and transform some aspect of their praxis (practice). Hence, action research can then be a means to respond to government studies, claims and other theories put forward by stakeholders. In doing so, action research is used as a tool to increase professionalism and empower teachers.

References

Altrichter, H., Posch, P., & Somekh, B. (1993). Teachers investigate their work:An introduction to methods of action research. London: Routledge.

Clandinin, D. J. & Connelly, F. M. (1992). Teacher as curriculum maker. In P. W. Jackson,(Ed.), Handbook of research on curriculum. (pp. 363 – 401) New York, NY: Macmillan.

Connelly, F. M., & Clandinin, D. J. (1988). Teachers as curriculum planners: Narratives of experience. Toronto, ON: OISE Press.

Feldman, A. (1999). The role of conversation in collaborative action research. Educational Action Research, 7 (1), 125 – 144.

Habermas, J. (1979). Communication and the evolution of society. Boston, MA: Beacon.

Hargreaves, A., & Fullan, M. (1998). What’s worth fighting for out there? Toronto, ON: Ontario Public School Teachers’ Federation.

Hopkins, D. (1993). A teacher’s guide to classroom research (2nd ed.). Milton Keynes: Open University Press.

McLean, J. L. (1995). Improving education through action research: A guide for administrators and teachers. Thousand Oaks,CA: Corwin.

McTaggart, R. (1997). Participatory action research: International contexts and consequences. Albany, NY: State University of New York.

Royal Commission on Learning. (1994). For the love of learning. Toronto, ON: Queen’s Printer for Ontario.

Rudduck, J. (1991). Innovation and change. Toronto, ON: OISE Press.

Russell, T. (1995). Why can’t I teach without action research ? Toronto,ON: The Ontario Public School Teachers Federation.

Bibiographical Note:

Dr. Thomas Ryan

Thomas is an Assistant Professor of Education within the Faculty of Education at Nipissing University, North Bay, Ontario and a supporter of action research. As former Ontario Elementary and Secondary Teacher, Thomas is supportive of educators who wish to undertake an action research effort in order to improve and refine teaching praxes. Currently, he teaches Research Methods, Evaluation and Teaching Seminar courses at the undergraduate levels.