Ex Writer 38 | - ✏ Freelance Writer
May 02, 2016 | #1
Abstract
Action research is particularly conducive to academic settings in that it allows for the complexity and dynamism inherent to the educational environment. The common methodologies of practical, participatory, and teacher action research are all concurrently viable in the school context despite the common criticisms of action research. The research study briefly proposed herein would lend itself well to a participatory, action research framework.
Action research methodologies have distinct implications for academic settings which exist independent of those had by alternative research methodologies. Primarily, action research is particularly conducive to educational settings because of its cyclical, flexible nature. This inquiry explores methodologies common to action research, synthesizing the advantages and disadvantages of the research frameworks and affording attention to action research possibilities for higher education settings. In essence, action research recognizes that academic settings are defined by a myriad of interconnected variables that are constantly in flux, and, by extension, effective research methodologies must be just as dynamic as the setting in which the research is taking place.
Action research is cyclical planning with respect to a particular intervention (Armstrong and Moore). While the focus is streamlined during an action research study, the outcomes are not predetermined. Action researchers are fervently sensitive to the complexity of academic settings and adopt the action research approach out of respect for the nature of the educational context. In their text appropriately entitled Action Research for Inclusive Education, authors Armstrong and Moore cite that "action research generates knowledge, as well as being concerned with bringing about change, through processes of observation, reflection and critical engagement with ideas and practices" (2004, p. 2). Consistently responsive, action researchers welcome results that might be construed as unorthodox or unexpected. Similarly, a project that does not, on the surface, appear to have been a success with respect to the original focus could in actuality be extremely productive, yielding unique perspectives and raising unanticipated issues (Armstrong and Moore, 2004). During action research, regardless of the precise methodology utilized, the goal is simply the production of knowledge and not necessarily the instrumental agenda set forth at the beginning of the study.
Common Methodologies in Action Research
Action research surmounts an obstacle commonly presented to the field of education by conventional research; it defies the common formula of yielding a relatively simple conclusion to a complex problem. The family of methodologies common to action research embodies both action and research conclusions in parallel. Action research is generally qualitative rather than quantitative and depends crucially on the active participation and critical reflection of all stakeholders in the research process. Unlike conventional research studies, action research is cyclical, repeating the research steps in a recurring, predictable sequence. Additionally and most saliently, the family of methodologies common to action research are all concurrently responsive and emergent, adapting to change gradually and over time.
Interconnected Methodologies
Action research methodologies are generally characterized by the research context or the researchers themselves; they can be individual, collaborative, school-wide, or district-wide. Practical action research depends on the critical reflection of teachers or other stakeholders on their practice, be it in the classroom, administrative office, or alternative context. Participatory action research methodologies evolve from the acts of planning, action, observation, evaluation, and reflection; these steps then repeat in the aforementioned, cyclical fashion common to action research. Teacher action research is usually individual or collaborative in nature, taking place in a single or small group of classrooms within the same school.
Though most action research is qualitative, defined through observation and reflection and articulated through language and not numerical evidence, some action research can be mixed-method in nature, utilizing both qualitative and quantitative data-gathering techniques. Depending on the nature of the study, qualitative methods are usually more conducive to educational research than quantitative methods. Quantitative data collection depends crucially on the streamlined, efficient choice of an instrument and most action research does not lend itself to a single survey or quantitative tool. In essence, qualitative methods allow for the responsive nature of action research, and quantitative methods are usually too rigid to be applied to a true, action research study.
Traditional Research versus Action Research
The conventional formats for research studies disallow for constant adjustments. Specifically, if a researcher uses a quantitative tool such as a survey or close-ended questionnaire and it yields inapplicable results, a traditional research framework would demand that the data collected be either thrown out completely before the study can be adjusted lest the study be deemed unsuccessful. In either case, inflexibility in methodology is tantamount to wasted time and energy. The element of responsiveness in action research is critical, as is the cyclic nature of the research study. In his article entitled "A Beginner's Guide to Action Research," Dick writes that "to achieve both action and research outcomes requires responsiveness -- to the situation, and the people, and the growing understanding on the part of those involved. Using a cyclic process in most circumstances enhances responsiveness." Additionally and in sharp contrast to traditional research methodologies, action research methodologies allow all data collected to be held as equally valuable, even if it is reflective of unanticipated outcomes.
Rigid, research frameworks generally warrant hypotheses and expected conclusions. When the data being collected is not in line with the identified variables, a conventional methodology does not have the flexibility to amend the study midstream. Action research, however, demands only an area of focus prior to the study's beginning. While the researchers will undoubtedly hold preconceived notions about the study may end, they do not allow these ideas to skew the study before it begins. However, should the study progress in a way that suggests a different route be taken during a proceeding cycle, action research allows this to happen. Dick contends in his aforementioned article that "imprecise questions and methods can be expected to yield imprecise answers initially. But if those imprecise answers can help to refine questions and methods, then each cycle can be a step in the direction of better action and research.... In other words, there are times when the initial use of fuzzy methods to answer fuzzy questions is the only appropriate choice." In short, while traditional, quasi-scientific methods have a rigid vision for the progression of a study from beginning to end, action research allows the study to evolve in conjunction with the data being gathered.
Quality in Action Research
Just as quality is critical to conventional research methodologies, quality is equally paramount during action research. However, that quality is defined very differently during an action research study. Specifically, quality action research has repeated cycles and multiple sources of data. The data sources may shift and adapt throughout the study as well and need not be defined prior to the study's beginning. Ideally, however, the researchers themselves are an integral data source, as they are truly committed to the study and may be the stakeholders most affected by the change being addressed. A number of cycles ensures the validity of the evidence being yielded, as long as planning precedes action, followed by critical reflection. Constantly and fervently pursuing quality during action research studies can aid in countering the common critiques of the process.
Synthesis: Advantages and Disadvantages of Action Research
Action research presents a myriad of advantages to the field of education. However, the most advantageous elements of action research methodologies are the same areas criticized by skeptics of action research. Primarily, the two most common critiques of action research are that it is not scientific enough to be called authentically empirical and that its participatory nature renders it inherently political.
Common Critique: Action Research Is Not Scientific
Proponents of traditional methodologies demand scientific structure throughout the course of a study. The environment must be controlled in such a way that the predetermined variables are, in essence, the only element in the study allowed to change. While such methodologies are conducive to medical research and other scientific fields in which a clinical setting is feasible, the nature of the academic world does not lend itself to such constraints. For instance, if a teacher were to study the effects of standardized testing on his or her student population's stress level during test-week in a quasi-experimental format, he or she would not be able to take into account unforeseen stressors such as schedule changes, widespread illness, or a bomb threat. The academic environment is far too complex to be confined to a rigid, scientific framework.
Common Critique: Action Research is Too Political
An alternative criticism of action research is that it is too political in nature. Because action research methodologies are so participatory in nature, depending critically on the teachers' or other stakeholders' involvement throughout the process, critics are skeptical of the extent to which the role of the researcher is tantamount to the role of political activist. Authors Armstrong and Moore write in their aforementioned text that "action research has been used as a means of imposing policy change and of implementing policy (sometimes no more than a 'gentler' version of imposing change)." More positively, however, action research is a channel for challenging the often problematic top-down path of policy-making. While action research is undoubtedly a means of empowering teachers to catalyze genuine change in their schools, there is no reason why the political element of action research should be perceived as a negative. Schools themselves are deeply entrenched in politics, and allowing teachers to play a proactive role in their working environment is an invaluable result of action research methodologies.
Action Research and Higher Education
Action research is conducive to academic settings on all levels. In higher education settings, in particular, teachers often have the freedom to pursue action research agendas and may have the temporal flexibility to do so in a way that elementary and secondary school teachers do not. Additionally, the common criticism that action research is too political may be less asserted within higher education settings, particularly in private institutions.
Action Research: Applying Waldorf Education Principles to the University Classroom
Within the higher education setting, stress levels among full-time student populations are a mounting problem, as is absenteeism and drop-out rates for freshman, visual arts students. Waldorf education is a growing, alternative education movement that began during the 1940s in Germany and has since spread exponentially throughout Europe and North America. Though Waldorf was initially focused on early childhood and elementary education, the movement has grown to birth several high schools in the United States and dozens more in Europe and Asia. As yet, however, there are no Waldorf universities save those that specifically educate Waldorf teachers. The focus area of the action research study discussed herein is to examine the effect of employing Waldorf principles in a college classroom on the stress levels, participation, and overall engagement of freshman students majoring in art and design.
Background and Problem-Focus
Much like action research, Waldorf education is both heralded and condemned. While proponents of the movement fervently support its strict focus on creativity and devaluation of science and mathematics, skeptics have accused Waldorf education of everything from inefficacy to racism. The curricular framework for Waldorf is rigid and similar across institutional lines, with strict content areas for every grade from kindergarten through twelfth. The central tenets that are embodied by Waldorf schools throughout all grades are predictable rhythms, home-like atmospheres, student-made textbooks, and a strong emphasis on creative exploration regardless of the subject being studied. Waldorf schools are highly critical of technology and generally do not condone the use of computers, calculators, or other technologies in the classroom even at the high school level.
Undoubtedly, not all of the Waldorf tenets will be conducive to the higher education setting, particularly for certain subject areas. However, supporters of Waldorf celebrate, among other things, the movement's de-stressing effect on students, citing that the educational style holds the ability to engage students in a way that conventional education does not. The creative element of the movement is particularly conducive to visual arts classes and may be able to counter the high rate of absenteeism and student drop-outs among freshman students.
Proposed Process
The chosen, action research methodology will be participatory in nature, cycling through the interconnected processes of planning, action, observation, evaluation, and reflection (Armstrong and Moore, 2004). Initially, the study will take place over the course of one, fall semester and within the context of four different painting and drawing classes. The study will be collaborative, as two teachers will be participating and engaged in all stages of the cycles.
Planning
Planning for the study will be a critical stage during all cycles. Initially, the planning stage will involve choosing which Waldorf elements will be particularly effective in the higher education setting. The participating teachers will aim to have regular rhythms within each class that are posted and predictable (ie. students display homework, students critique each other's work, teacher discusses class assignment, etc.). Most importantly, the classrooms will be organized in a home-like fashion using Waldorf design elements; these are usually muted, pastel color schemes, natural lighting, soft seating areas, and the presence of foods such as fresh bread and tea. Teachers will also implement the Waldorf strategy of having students make their own textbooks using book-binding methods.
Action
During the first action stage, seasoned teachers will be assessing the effect of the changes on their student population using all previous years as a baseline. For instance, if they usually lost two through five students during the first month of classes, they will compare this with the drop-out rate during the study. More qualitatively, teachers will interview students regarding the changes in the classroom specifically and how they feel about the class in general using open-ended questionnaires.
Observation and Evaluation
Much of the process will be observation, as some of the Waldorf elements imposed may be more effective than others. During the observation process, however, the participating teachers will discuss how they feel the changes are affecting the students, what is working and what is problematic, and, most saliently, whether the process should change during the next cycle. The key during all observations will be to assess the effect of the changes on student engagement, stress level, and absenteeism within the classroom contexts. The evaluation process will synthesize the data garnered from observations in a collaborative discussion between teachers and students.
Reflection
The final stage in the initial cycle is essential in retrospectively evaluating how the process could be amended during the next cycle. For instance, perhaps the activity of textbook-making consumed too much class time and did not seem particularly relevant to student engagement. Alternatively, perhaps the home-like atmosphere was particularly successful and kept students in the painting or drawing studio working long after class had ended. During reflection, the participating teachers will need to comprehensively extricate the most salient elements of the study, assess what is working and what is not working, and what needs to be remedied during future cycles. Unless an alteration is glaringly and immediately necessary following the first cycle, recommended is it that no changes be made to the methodology until at least the second cycle.
Synthesis
The study briefly proposed herein is particularly conducive to action research methodologies in that it may yield a range of evidence that is not anticipated; thus, some data would fit into a rigid, quasi-experimental research design. While the focus area of the study is well-defined, there are no inflexible variables or expected conclusions. The study is indicative of teacher empowerment at the higher education level, as they can implement changes that can boost student engagement and remedy identified problems within their institutions.
Summation
Action research charges teachers to collaborate, plan, carry out, and evaluate an intervention that they have deemed salient to their institution. Despite common criticisms, action research is particularly conducive to the educational setting in that it allows for the much needed flexibility and complexity of the academic context. While action research does indeed have a political component in that demands practitioner participation in catalyzing change, the political realm is inherent to the school environment anyway, and teacher empowerment is hardly a disadvantage of action research. Conversely, allowing teachers to effectively challenge the traditional imposition of values and policy from the administrative top downward is one of the single, greatest advantages of action research methodologies. In short, no one is more cognizant of the effects of a policy on the classroom than teachers. By extension, there is no one better to embark upon a research process than the teachers themselves.
School reform suggestions pervade institutions of all levels. Higher education teachers have greater freedom, in most cases, to embark upon an action research agenda. However, a formidable challenge presented by the higher education institution is that they are arguably even more complex than lower, academic settings; student populations are in flux on a semester-by-semester basis and the curriculum may be largely dynamic as well. While such a setting would present considerable opposition to any research agenda, including an action research methodology, action research is undoubtedly more appropriate for the intricacy of higher education settings. Authors Armstrong and Moore write in their aforementioned text that "we recognize the complexity of social settings such as schools and colleges, and the artificial nature of identifying a 'focus' a as if it were possible to delineate a bounded area of social life without taking into account the dynamic and reciprocal relationships between contexts." Much like education itself, the goal of action research is to generate knowledge. In the absence of a predetermined, rigid agenda, a greater amount of knowledge can be yielded during a research study, as no variables or data need be eliminated merely because they did not suit the expected format or gel with the anticipated conclusions.
References
Armstrong, F. & Moore, M. (Eds.). Action Research for Inclusive Education: Changing Places, Changing Practice, Changing Minds. New York: RoutledgeFalmer.
Dick, B. A beginner's guide to action research.
McDermott, R. Waldorf Education in America: a Promise and Its Problems. Re-vision, 15(2), 82-90.
Action research is particularly conducive to academic settings in that it allows for the complexity and dynamism inherent to the educational environment. The common methodologies of practical, participatory, and teacher action research are all concurrently viable in the school context despite the common criticisms of action research. The research study briefly proposed herein would lend itself well to a participatory, action research framework.
Action Research: Exploring Common Methodologies and Applications for the Higher Education Setting
Action research methodologies have distinct implications for academic settings which exist independent of those had by alternative research methodologies. Primarily, action research is particularly conducive to educational settings because of its cyclical, flexible nature. This inquiry explores methodologies common to action research, synthesizing the advantages and disadvantages of the research frameworks and affording attention to action research possibilities for higher education settings. In essence, action research recognizes that academic settings are defined by a myriad of interconnected variables that are constantly in flux, and, by extension, effective research methodologies must be just as dynamic as the setting in which the research is taking place.
Action research is cyclical planning with respect to a particular intervention (Armstrong and Moore). While the focus is streamlined during an action research study, the outcomes are not predetermined. Action researchers are fervently sensitive to the complexity of academic settings and adopt the action research approach out of respect for the nature of the educational context. In their text appropriately entitled Action Research for Inclusive Education, authors Armstrong and Moore cite that "action research generates knowledge, as well as being concerned with bringing about change, through processes of observation, reflection and critical engagement with ideas and practices" (2004, p. 2). Consistently responsive, action researchers welcome results that might be construed as unorthodox or unexpected. Similarly, a project that does not, on the surface, appear to have been a success with respect to the original focus could in actuality be extremely productive, yielding unique perspectives and raising unanticipated issues (Armstrong and Moore, 2004). During action research, regardless of the precise methodology utilized, the goal is simply the production of knowledge and not necessarily the instrumental agenda set forth at the beginning of the study.
Common Methodologies in Action Research
Action research surmounts an obstacle commonly presented to the field of education by conventional research; it defies the common formula of yielding a relatively simple conclusion to a complex problem. The family of methodologies common to action research embodies both action and research conclusions in parallel. Action research is generally qualitative rather than quantitative and depends crucially on the active participation and critical reflection of all stakeholders in the research process. Unlike conventional research studies, action research is cyclical, repeating the research steps in a recurring, predictable sequence. Additionally and most saliently, the family of methodologies common to action research are all concurrently responsive and emergent, adapting to change gradually and over time.Interconnected Methodologies
Action research methodologies are generally characterized by the research context or the researchers themselves; they can be individual, collaborative, school-wide, or district-wide. Practical action research depends on the critical reflection of teachers or other stakeholders on their practice, be it in the classroom, administrative office, or alternative context. Participatory action research methodologies evolve from the acts of planning, action, observation, evaluation, and reflection; these steps then repeat in the aforementioned, cyclical fashion common to action research. Teacher action research is usually individual or collaborative in nature, taking place in a single or small group of classrooms within the same school.
Though most action research is qualitative, defined through observation and reflection and articulated through language and not numerical evidence, some action research can be mixed-method in nature, utilizing both qualitative and quantitative data-gathering techniques. Depending on the nature of the study, qualitative methods are usually more conducive to educational research than quantitative methods. Quantitative data collection depends crucially on the streamlined, efficient choice of an instrument and most action research does not lend itself to a single survey or quantitative tool. In essence, qualitative methods allow for the responsive nature of action research, and quantitative methods are usually too rigid to be applied to a true, action research study.
Traditional Research versus Action Research
The conventional formats for research studies disallow for constant adjustments. Specifically, if a researcher uses a quantitative tool such as a survey or close-ended questionnaire and it yields inapplicable results, a traditional research framework would demand that the data collected be either thrown out completely before the study can be adjusted lest the study be deemed unsuccessful. In either case, inflexibility in methodology is tantamount to wasted time and energy. The element of responsiveness in action research is critical, as is the cyclic nature of the research study. In his article entitled "A Beginner's Guide to Action Research," Dick writes that "to achieve both action and research outcomes requires responsiveness -- to the situation, and the people, and the growing understanding on the part of those involved. Using a cyclic process in most circumstances enhances responsiveness." Additionally and in sharp contrast to traditional research methodologies, action research methodologies allow all data collected to be held as equally valuable, even if it is reflective of unanticipated outcomes.
Rigid, research frameworks generally warrant hypotheses and expected conclusions. When the data being collected is not in line with the identified variables, a conventional methodology does not have the flexibility to amend the study midstream. Action research, however, demands only an area of focus prior to the study's beginning. While the researchers will undoubtedly hold preconceived notions about the study may end, they do not allow these ideas to skew the study before it begins. However, should the study progress in a way that suggests a different route be taken during a proceeding cycle, action research allows this to happen. Dick contends in his aforementioned article that "imprecise questions and methods can be expected to yield imprecise answers initially. But if those imprecise answers can help to refine questions and methods, then each cycle can be a step in the direction of better action and research.... In other words, there are times when the initial use of fuzzy methods to answer fuzzy questions is the only appropriate choice." In short, while traditional, quasi-scientific methods have a rigid vision for the progression of a study from beginning to end, action research allows the study to evolve in conjunction with the data being gathered.
Quality in Action Research
Just as quality is critical to conventional research methodologies, quality is equally paramount during action research. However, that quality is defined very differently during an action research study. Specifically, quality action research has repeated cycles and multiple sources of data. The data sources may shift and adapt throughout the study as well and need not be defined prior to the study's beginning. Ideally, however, the researchers themselves are an integral data source, as they are truly committed to the study and may be the stakeholders most affected by the change being addressed. A number of cycles ensures the validity of the evidence being yielded, as long as planning precedes action, followed by critical reflection. Constantly and fervently pursuing quality during action research studies can aid in countering the common critiques of the process.
Synthesis: Advantages and Disadvantages of Action Research
Action research presents a myriad of advantages to the field of education. However, the most advantageous elements of action research methodologies are the same areas criticized by skeptics of action research. Primarily, the two most common critiques of action research are that it is not scientific enough to be called authentically empirical and that its participatory nature renders it inherently political.
Common Critique: Action Research Is Not Scientific
Proponents of traditional methodologies demand scientific structure throughout the course of a study. The environment must be controlled in such a way that the predetermined variables are, in essence, the only element in the study allowed to change. While such methodologies are conducive to medical research and other scientific fields in which a clinical setting is feasible, the nature of the academic world does not lend itself to such constraints. For instance, if a teacher were to study the effects of standardized testing on his or her student population's stress level during test-week in a quasi-experimental format, he or she would not be able to take into account unforeseen stressors such as schedule changes, widespread illness, or a bomb threat. The academic environment is far too complex to be confined to a rigid, scientific framework.
Common Critique: Action Research is Too Political
An alternative criticism of action research is that it is too political in nature. Because action research methodologies are so participatory in nature, depending critically on the teachers' or other stakeholders' involvement throughout the process, critics are skeptical of the extent to which the role of the researcher is tantamount to the role of political activist. Authors Armstrong and Moore write in their aforementioned text that "action research has been used as a means of imposing policy change and of implementing policy (sometimes no more than a 'gentler' version of imposing change)." More positively, however, action research is a channel for challenging the often problematic top-down path of policy-making. While action research is undoubtedly a means of empowering teachers to catalyze genuine change in their schools, there is no reason why the political element of action research should be perceived as a negative. Schools themselves are deeply entrenched in politics, and allowing teachers to play a proactive role in their working environment is an invaluable result of action research methodologies.
Action Research and Higher Education
Action research is conducive to academic settings on all levels. In higher education settings, in particular, teachers often have the freedom to pursue action research agendas and may have the temporal flexibility to do so in a way that elementary and secondary school teachers do not. Additionally, the common criticism that action research is too political may be less asserted within higher education settings, particularly in private institutions.
Action Research: Applying Waldorf Education Principles to the University Classroom
Within the higher education setting, stress levels among full-time student populations are a mounting problem, as is absenteeism and drop-out rates for freshman, visual arts students. Waldorf education is a growing, alternative education movement that began during the 1940s in Germany and has since spread exponentially throughout Europe and North America. Though Waldorf was initially focused on early childhood and elementary education, the movement has grown to birth several high schools in the United States and dozens more in Europe and Asia. As yet, however, there are no Waldorf universities save those that specifically educate Waldorf teachers. The focus area of the action research study discussed herein is to examine the effect of employing Waldorf principles in a college classroom on the stress levels, participation, and overall engagement of freshman students majoring in art and design.
Background and Problem-Focus
Much like action research, Waldorf education is both heralded and condemned. While proponents of the movement fervently support its strict focus on creativity and devaluation of science and mathematics, skeptics have accused Waldorf education of everything from inefficacy to racism. The curricular framework for Waldorf is rigid and similar across institutional lines, with strict content areas for every grade from kindergarten through twelfth. The central tenets that are embodied by Waldorf schools throughout all grades are predictable rhythms, home-like atmospheres, student-made textbooks, and a strong emphasis on creative exploration regardless of the subject being studied. Waldorf schools are highly critical of technology and generally do not condone the use of computers, calculators, or other technologies in the classroom even at the high school level.
Undoubtedly, not all of the Waldorf tenets will be conducive to the higher education setting, particularly for certain subject areas. However, supporters of Waldorf celebrate, among other things, the movement's de-stressing effect on students, citing that the educational style holds the ability to engage students in a way that conventional education does not. The creative element of the movement is particularly conducive to visual arts classes and may be able to counter the high rate of absenteeism and student drop-outs among freshman students.
Proposed Process
The chosen, action research methodology will be participatory in nature, cycling through the interconnected processes of planning, action, observation, evaluation, and reflection (Armstrong and Moore, 2004). Initially, the study will take place over the course of one, fall semester and within the context of four different painting and drawing classes. The study will be collaborative, as two teachers will be participating and engaged in all stages of the cycles.
Planning
Planning for the study will be a critical stage during all cycles. Initially, the planning stage will involve choosing which Waldorf elements will be particularly effective in the higher education setting. The participating teachers will aim to have regular rhythms within each class that are posted and predictable (ie. students display homework, students critique each other's work, teacher discusses class assignment, etc.). Most importantly, the classrooms will be organized in a home-like fashion using Waldorf design elements; these are usually muted, pastel color schemes, natural lighting, soft seating areas, and the presence of foods such as fresh bread and tea. Teachers will also implement the Waldorf strategy of having students make their own textbooks using book-binding methods.
Action
During the first action stage, seasoned teachers will be assessing the effect of the changes on their student population using all previous years as a baseline. For instance, if they usually lost two through five students during the first month of classes, they will compare this with the drop-out rate during the study. More qualitatively, teachers will interview students regarding the changes in the classroom specifically and how they feel about the class in general using open-ended questionnaires.
Observation and Evaluation
Much of the process will be observation, as some of the Waldorf elements imposed may be more effective than others. During the observation process, however, the participating teachers will discuss how they feel the changes are affecting the students, what is working and what is problematic, and, most saliently, whether the process should change during the next cycle. The key during all observations will be to assess the effect of the changes on student engagement, stress level, and absenteeism within the classroom contexts. The evaluation process will synthesize the data garnered from observations in a collaborative discussion between teachers and students.
Reflection
The final stage in the initial cycle is essential in retrospectively evaluating how the process could be amended during the next cycle. For instance, perhaps the activity of textbook-making consumed too much class time and did not seem particularly relevant to student engagement. Alternatively, perhaps the home-like atmosphere was particularly successful and kept students in the painting or drawing studio working long after class had ended. During reflection, the participating teachers will need to comprehensively extricate the most salient elements of the study, assess what is working and what is not working, and what needs to be remedied during future cycles. Unless an alteration is glaringly and immediately necessary following the first cycle, recommended is it that no changes be made to the methodology until at least the second cycle.
Synthesis
The study briefly proposed herein is particularly conducive to action research methodologies in that it may yield a range of evidence that is not anticipated; thus, some data would fit into a rigid, quasi-experimental research design. While the focus area of the study is well-defined, there are no inflexible variables or expected conclusions. The study is indicative of teacher empowerment at the higher education level, as they can implement changes that can boost student engagement and remedy identified problems within their institutions.
Summation
Action research charges teachers to collaborate, plan, carry out, and evaluate an intervention that they have deemed salient to their institution. Despite common criticisms, action research is particularly conducive to the educational setting in that it allows for the much needed flexibility and complexity of the academic context. While action research does indeed have a political component in that demands practitioner participation in catalyzing change, the political realm is inherent to the school environment anyway, and teacher empowerment is hardly a disadvantage of action research. Conversely, allowing teachers to effectively challenge the traditional imposition of values and policy from the administrative top downward is one of the single, greatest advantages of action research methodologies. In short, no one is more cognizant of the effects of a policy on the classroom than teachers. By extension, there is no one better to embark upon a research process than the teachers themselves.
School reform suggestions pervade institutions of all levels. Higher education teachers have greater freedom, in most cases, to embark upon an action research agenda. However, a formidable challenge presented by the higher education institution is that they are arguably even more complex than lower, academic settings; student populations are in flux on a semester-by-semester basis and the curriculum may be largely dynamic as well. While such a setting would present considerable opposition to any research agenda, including an action research methodology, action research is undoubtedly more appropriate for the intricacy of higher education settings. Authors Armstrong and Moore write in their aforementioned text that "we recognize the complexity of social settings such as schools and colleges, and the artificial nature of identifying a 'focus' a as if it were possible to delineate a bounded area of social life without taking into account the dynamic and reciprocal relationships between contexts." Much like education itself, the goal of action research is to generate knowledge. In the absence of a predetermined, rigid agenda, a greater amount of knowledge can be yielded during a research study, as no variables or data need be eliminated merely because they did not suit the expected format or gel with the anticipated conclusions.
References
Armstrong, F. & Moore, M. (Eds.). Action Research for Inclusive Education: Changing Places, Changing Practice, Changing Minds. New York: RoutledgeFalmer.
Dick, B. A beginner's guide to action research.
McDermott, R. Waldorf Education in America: a Promise and Its Problems. Re-vision, 15(2), 82-90.