My+Own+Action+Research+Project

=Action Research: An Analysis of a Project=

In 2009 for another paper I completed an Action Research project which looked at the impact of blogging on learner motivation to write. At the time I conducted this research (which had ethical approval from the University of Canterbury) I was unaware of the term 'emergent research methodologies' and had not examined Action Research through this lense.

Below, I seek to re-examine the research I conducted then, based on the understandings I am gaining now as part of my Emergent Research Methodologies course.



One form of Action Research that we have studied is described in Gall, Gall and Borg (2005). They describe the steps of an Action Research project, in a somewhat linear manner, as follows: 1. Define the problem 2. Select the design 3. Select research participants 4. Collect data 5. Analyse data 6. Interpret and apply findings 7. Report findings (p.492)

My blogging Action Research project (McDonald-Brown, 2009), begins with a statement of the problem (students' apparent lack of motivation to write) and some possible reasons for this, followed by a suggested solution (the use of blogs). This initial stage also included background information about this issue (as found in published research) and a statement about the theoretical perspective of connectivism and how it relates to this Action Research. So far this corresponds to Gall's et al. (2005) first stage, 'Define the problem'.

Gall's et al. second stage is that of Selecting the Design. My report does outline what I intended the students themselves to do, but does not set out the particular Action Research design used. In retrospect, this could have been set out more clearly in the early stages of the research. Instead, I addressed issues such as parental consent for participation in blogging and some of the planning decisions I made during the early stages of design. So Gall's et al. (2005) second step was certainly taken, even if not explicitly described.

The selection of research participants is Gall's et al. third stage. Because I am a practising classroom teacher, it was my own class who were the participants, with the exception of a couple who were not given permission to participate. This class is described on the first page of the project. Because the participants were my own class, this positions me as an insider in this research project - particularly as their improvement and motivation to write is very much a concern of mine.

As stated above, the next step in Gall's et al. model is data collection and analysis. The first data I collected was their attitudes and opinions, as well as practices concerning writing, before any intervention. I gathered this information by means of a survey, using the web tool Survey Monkey. The results of this data collection and analysis can be found here. The data was certainly informative. However, now that I understand more about emergent research methodologies, I can see that perhaps I was trying to be 'too scientific' or detached in my approach. After all, the participants were students that I spent all day with, every day, for a year. If I was conducting this research now, I would be more open to initiating conversation with the class, exploring some of their attitudes in more depth. The survey was a good starting point, but I think there was a missed opportunity for further exploration and allowing students voice.

One aspect of Gall's et al. model that I find a little strange, is that it is an Action Research cycle, and yet none of the seven steps is titled 'action'. The sixth stage, Interpret and Apply, could be the action component. For my Action Research project I implemented some changes as a result of the initial data collection. In particular, I introduced blogging as a means of improving motivation to write. The implementation of this intervention is described here. Gall et al. emphasise the importance of reflection throughout the stages and this is evident on the page that I linked to above and on the pages representing the other stages as well. Certainly the next phase of my project, Evaluation, contained a lot of reflection, and in fact fed into a more cyclical research design. In this respect my research was more similar to Somekh's (2010) model below, in that I returned to further data collection and analysis once I had implemented the intervention.



Gall's et al. final stage is that of reporting the findings. My Action Research project was shared with my course participants and lecturers, with my school leadership, and some aspects of it were shared on my professional blog, Webb-ed Feet, which has had nearly 2500 visitors from many different countries. I also had a presentation accepted for the ULearn conference in 2009, but unfortunately had to withdraw due to lack of funding. Furthermore, I am sharing the research here in this course.

This research process was very interesting at the time and enabled me to discover a lot about my students' needs. However, as mentioned above, I feel it lacked the 'insider' feel, treated the participants more as subjects rather than partners, and ultimately I had full control of the course of the research design, the interpretation of the results and the conclusions drawn. If I was conducting this research again I would seek to increase the democratic validity discussed by Gall et al. (2005) by not having such a tight grip on the research design and interpretation.


 * References**

Gall, J. P., Gall, M. D., & Borg, W. R. (2005). Chapter 15 Action Research. In J. P. Gall, M. D. Gall, & W. R. Borg (2005) // Applying educatonal research. A practical guide. // (5th ed.), 487-521. Boston, MA: Pearson.

McDonald-Brown, C. (2009). //Using Class Blogmeister to Encourage Students to Write//. Retrieved from http://notaland.com/craigm/21754?authkey=203043306e

Somekh, B. (2010). Simplified model of Action Research. Cited in N.E. Davis (2010) // Action Research: An emergent journey //. Presentation to EDEM698 hui,  Christchurch July 2010. Retrieved September 11, 2010 from http://learn.canterbury.ac.nz/mod/resource/view.php?id=106964