Journal of Curriculum and Instruction (JoCI), January 2009, Volume 3, Number 1 (Cher Hendricks)

Using Action Research to Improve Educational Practices:

Where We Are and Where We Are Going

Cher Hendricks
University of West Georgia

In the current era of school accountability triggered by the No Child Left Behind
Act (NCLB) (2001), teachers and other school professionals are expected to ensure that
all students reach academic standards set by each state. Pressure is on schools to
make progress each year toward the goal of 100% of students reaching those minimum
standards, regardless of their background or exceptionality. Though few would disagree
with the merit of the intent of NCLB, one consequence of the resulting political climate is
an over reliance on “scientifically-based” curricular reforms. These reforms promise
broad student success but can take away teachers’ autonomy and are counter to the
idea that teachers are able professionals with the knowledge and skills needed to
improve their practices for the benefit of students’ academic success.

For those of us who teach and facilitate in-service teachers’ action research
studies, it has become increasingly difficult to help teachers navigate school climates
where they are expected to focus on students’ attainment of standards but are not given
a voice in how best to meet that goal. After a year of conducting action research
studies, the teachers and administrators with whom I work state emphatically that the
process made them more reflective professionals who view themselves as practitioner-
researchers with the ability to make real changes in schools. However, few continue
with action research studies beyond their graduate program requirements because of
competing professional obligations, school cultures that do not support action research,
or conflicts with school and district goals.

In one case, an elementary teacher and former student contacted me for advice
about a new reading curriculum the teachers at her school were required to implement.
This teacher was told to adhere to the model without straying from the prescribed
instructional methods, which were not working for her population of students. She
subversively collected data by observing students, conferencing with them, and
engaging them in think-alouds, and she was confident she could alter the curriculum to
make it more effective for her students. She knew, though, that this might mean losing
her job. In the end, she made the changes, kept quiet about it, and watched her
students’ test scores increase. Her subversion, which was nothing more than engaging
in the reflective activities of a professional educator, benefited students’ achievement.
But her additions and alterations to the reading curriculum also benefited a curriculum
package that, because of her students’ success, appeared to be more powerful than it
actually was in her classroom.

http://www.joci.ecu.edu doi:10.3766/joci.2009.v3.n1p1-6 1
Journal of Curriculum and Instruction (JoCI), January 2009, Volume 3, Number 1 (Cher Hendricks)

The focus of this issue of the Journal of Curriculum and Instruction is using action
research to improve educational practices. The articles cover diverse topics relevant to
P-12 educators and university faculty interested in ways action research can make a
difference in schools and with students. Sagor delves more deeply into ways action
research, particularly in collaboration with others, can contribute to the professional
knowledge base and enhance curricular reforms by helping teachers discover how to
alter instruction and curriculum across varied contexts. Manfra discusses the theoretical
divide between competing purposes of action research and suggests we begin looking
for commonalities between practical and critical forms of action research. Massey and
her colleagues report on an investigation of what graduate students gain and take away
from action research courses and experiences. Ellison, an elementary school teacher,
describes the action research study she conducted in her classroom to help students
gain mathematics problem-solving skills and confidence. The articles by Sagor, Manfra,
and Massey reveal barriers, both theoretical and practical, to the action research
process. Ellison gives us a practical application of teacher research that reveals the
reflective work of a professional educator who is using the tools of action research to
guide her own professional development.

In his invited piece on collaborative action research and school improvement,

Richard Sagor emphasizes the role of teachers in making schools places where all
children, regardless of demographics, language barriers, and exceptionalities, can
learn. Sagor expresses concern over the notion that mandated reform models and
standards-based reforms can succeed simply by ensuring that they are implemented
with “fidelity” within schools and districts. According to Sagor, the notion that reform
models based on scientifically-based research and proven practices will, if implemented
precisely the way intended, result in success for all students, is flawed. As he explains,
the research that supports scientifically-based programs—even those with the strongest
research bases—suggests, at best, that the programs work for most, but not for all,
students.

Further, when teachers are pressured to implement instructional models with

“fidelity”—especially when this means they cannot alter the model to fit the needs of
those students for whom the program is not working—they lose the ability to engage in
the kinds of behaviors that are vital to professionals. Like professionals in technological
fields, Sagor suggests that educators engage in research and development activities in
order to create “the knowledge, understandings, and breakthroughs needed for the
achievement of universal success” (p. 8). These research and development activities
are a natural fit with collaborative action research, which, through the professional
learning community model, brings teachers together for the shared purpose of studying
and improving their educational practices in an effort to achieve success for all students.

Meghan McGlinn Manfra proposes a middle ground in action research that would
allow teacher researchers to study practical problems in their classrooms while also
studying issues related to the social, political, and cultural contexts of schools. Manfra
begins her article by tracing the history and growth of action research and describing
the emergence of different forms of educational inquiry in the United States, Australia,

http://www.joci.ecu.edu doi:10.3766/joci.2009.v3.n1p1-6 2
Journal of Curriculum and Instruction (JoCI), January 2009, Volume 3, Number 1 (Cher Hendricks)

and the United Kingdom. As Manfra explains, in the 1980s interest in action research
grew in the United States with most supporters describing action research as a method
for conducting classroom research to improve instructional practices. This “practical”
form of inquiry empowered teachers to study their own practices, putting them in charge
of their professional development. In Australia and the United Kingdom there has been
greater emphasis on “critical” forms of inquiry and action research that highlight issues
of social justice and the creation of a democratic society.

While both practical and critical forms of inquiry are valuable, Manfra describes
the theoretical divide between them and discusses the criticism by some supporters of
critical action research who suggest practical action research is dangerous, disregards
social and cultural issues, and sustains status quo political agendas. Explaining that
practical and critical forms of inquiry are not mutually exclusive, Manfra suggests that
advocates on both sides of the theoretical division engage in dialogue where both the
practical concerns of teachers as well as the emancipatory issues focused on in critical
action research can bring them toward a middle ground.

In the article by Massey, Allred, Baber, Lowe, Ormond, and Weatherly, the
authors confront issues of sustainability of teacher research for those educators who
learn the processes of action research in their education programs but have difficulty
maintaining a research agenda after completing research coursework. Massey begins
by setting the problem within the context of publications on teacher research. These
articles are typically published by university faculty or in collaboration with teachers but
are rarely written by in-service teachers on their own. This phenomenon led Massey to
ask the question Who is teacher research for and what is the point?, which she
answered in conjunction with five former graduate students who completed a year-long
teacher research project under her supervision.

Their conversations led Massey to conclude that for these former students—
whom she described as five of her most dedicated students—the research experience
revealed a number of benefits. These benefits included a shift in teachers’ thinking
about what counts as research and increased confidence in their role as researchers. A
second benefit was the impact the studies had on teachers’ instruction and their
assessment of student learning. The teachers came to value the reflective nature of the
action research process as a path to continuous learning about ways to improve their
teaching. A year after they completed their research projects, however, none of the five
former students were engaged in formal studies of their practice, largely due to changes
in professional roles and responsibilities that limited their time. They did, however,
believe the benefits of becoming teacher researchers persisted, providing them with
skills in data collection and analysis and a desire for ongoing learning and improvement.

Jobrina Gale Ellison, an elementary school teacher in Tennessee, conducted an

action research study to determine the impact of teaching mathematical problem-solving
skills on advanced students’ confidence and ability in solving math problems. During her
study, she collected multiple forms of data, which revealed that the instructional
strategies she used with students resulted in increased problem-solving ability, though

http://www.joci.ecu.edu doi:10.3766/joci.2009.v3.n1p1-6 3
Journal of Curriculum and Instruction (JoCI), January 2009, Volume 3, Number 1 (Cher Hendricks)

there were no noteworthy gains in students’ problem-solving confidence. Ellison

analyzed results more specifically for five of her 25 students, choosing those whose
problem-solving abilities increased most significantly due to motivational factors. In her
conclusions, Ellison sets her results within the literature base and defines new
questions that could lead to an even deeper understanding of how best to increase
mathematical problem-solving abilities and confidence levels of high-achieving students.

This special issue also includes two book reviews. Geoff Mills reviews Creating
Equitable Classrooms through Action Research (Caro-Bruce, Flessner, Klehr, &
Zeichner, 2007), a book that provides authentic examples of practical forms of action
research conducted by teachers that lead to more socially and academically equitable
school experiences for students. Bob Fecho reviews Teachers Taking Action: A
Comprehensive Guide to Teacher Research (Lassonde & Israel, 2008), a text that
offers practitioners steps for conducting action research as well as ways to publish
results. Both reviewed books feature subjects discussed by the contributors to this
special issue—the first book reveals ways action research can be both practically and
critically oriented, and the second suggests ways to set practitioner studies within the
educational knowledge base.

----------------

Action research has seen its greatest growth in the United States in the last 20
years. Though action research was suggested as a way to improve schools as early as
the 1950s, the push toward more “rigorous” methods of research that rely on the
scientific method lessened interest in practitioner-based methodologies (Manfra, 2009;
Hendricks, 2009). Once again we find ourselves in a political climate that favors
“scientifically-based” research, and in this climate it is difficult for educators to find
support for their research efforts. What seems to be most confounding both to teachers
and teacher educators is the notion that schools can be improved and students can be
brought to certain levels of achievement by simply providing the right curricula. Further,
though teachers are held accountable for their students’ successes and failures, often
they are not given the opportunity or support to engage in the kinds of reflective
research studies that can positively impact students’ academic growth and the teachers’
own professional development.

One way to grow and nurture the action research movement is to provide more
opportunities for teachers to share the results of their studies through publication and
presentation. For this to occur, conversations among P-12 and university educators will
have to take place, and it is likely that what counts as research will have to be
negotiated. What is necessary is finding a balance between how to define “rigor” in
studies where context cannot be separated out or controlled but must be acknowledged
and valued. It is the rich, context-specific nature of action research that can help
educators determine the conditions under which different teaching methods and
curricula work best. Once those of us in higher education can value the context-specific
nature of action research, we are less likely to try to fit it into our schema of “rigorous”
research and thus are more likely to publish it.

http://www.joci.ecu.edu doi:10.3766/joci.2009.v3.n1p1-6 4
Journal of Curriculum and Instruction (JoCI), January 2009, Volume 3, Number 1 (Cher Hendricks)

Another way to support the action research movement is to bring theorists and
practitioners to the table to discuss ways the various forms impact students and
schools. The longer debates among different camps persist, the more polarized
individuals within them become. Whether a practitioner is conducting a practical study
or one more aligned with critical issues, the goal is generally the same: to make schools
a better place for students and for educators.

Ensuring the action research movement is sustained and continues to grow will
not be an easy task. It requires dedication on the part of school-based practitioners and
academics who see the power of action research to improve schools and who will look
for ways to more fully integrate action research in the professional work of educators.
As academics, our commitment must go beyond giving our students a brief opportunity
to be researchers, writing about the transformational nature of action research, or
engaging in theoretical debates about what action research is and what it should look
like. Though theory-building is necessary, action research is only impactful when
educators are actually engaging in the process, sharing what they learn with colleagues,
and setting their findings within the knowledge base (through publication, for example).
We must give them space and opportunity to do that. As for practitioners, those who
value action research must find ways to negotiate competing demands of the current
political climate, make time for action research studies, and share with their colleagues
and administrators what they have learned. These activities are risky for us all because
they require redefining who we are and what we have known. For university educators,
this means changing our idea of what counts as research. For practitioners, it means
embracing the role of researcher. Changes such as these are difficult and
uncomfortable, but they are the best chance we have for improving schools through
engagement in meaningful and impactful research.

References

Caro-Bruce, C., Flessner, R., Klehr, M., & Zeichner, K. (Eds.). (2007). Creating
equitable classrooms through action research. Thousand Oaks: Corwin Press
and NSDC.

Ellison, J. G. (2009). Increasing problem solving skills in fifth grade advanced

mathematics students. Journal of Curriculum and Instruction, 3(1), 15-31.

Fecho, B. (2009). Book review [Review of Teachers taking action: A comprehensive

guide to teacher research]. Journal of Curriculum and Instruction, 3(1), 62-63.

Hendricks, C. (2009). Improving schools through action research: A comprehensive

guide for educators. (2ed). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson.

Lassonde, C. A., & Israel, S. E. (Eds.). (2009). Teachers taking action: A

comprehensive guide to teacher research. Newark, DE: International Reading
Association.

http://www.joci.ecu.edu doi:10.3766/joci.2009.v3.n1p1-6 5
Journal of Curriculum and Instruction (JoCI), January 2009, Volume 3, Number 1 (Cher Hendricks)

Manfra, M. M. (2009). Action research: Exploring the theoretical divide between

practical and critical approaches. Journal of Curriculum and Instruction, 3(1), 32-
46.

Massey, D. D., Allred, M., Baber, P., Lowe, J., Ormond, A., & Weatherly, J. (2009).
Teacher research: Who is it for and what is the point? Journal of Curriculum and
Instruction, 3(1), 47-66.

Mills, G. (2009). Book review [Review of the book Creating equitable classrooms
through action research]. Journal of Curriculum and Instruction 3(1), 64-65.

No Child Left Behind Act, 20 U.S.C. §§ 6310 et seq. (2001).

Sagor, R. (2009). Collaborative action research and school improvement: We can’t have
one without the other. Journal of Curriculum and Instruction, 3(1), 7-14.

About the Guest Editor:

Cher Hendricks is an associate professor of educational research and interim

director of the Ed.D. in School Improvement at the University of West Georgia.
Email: [email protected]

http://www.joci.ecu.edu doi:10.3766/joci.2009.v3.n1p1-6 6