Both Action Research (AR) and Design-Based Research (DBR) were strongly and carefully considered as methodologies that could be utilised for this research. These two approaches have several over-lapping features and aspects, which could have supported the research undertaken.
Since Lewin (1946) first used the term “Action Research” more than seventy years ago, AR has become a popular practice in the field of education (among other social sciences), but education researchers and theorists have developed varying definitions, emphasising different aspects of the methodology. For example, some scholars highlight the importance of collaboration among practitioners (Kemmis & McTaggart, 1988); others promote self- reflective inquiry (Carr & Kemmis, 1986); and some advocate for the development of theory (Stenhouse, 1979). Cohen et al. (2011) amalgamate a few of these definitions to convey a concise understanding of AR, utilised in this thesis:
Action research is a form of disciplined, rigorous enquiry, in which personal attempt is made to understand, improve and reform practice...a systematic study that combines action and reflection with the intention of improving practice…[It is] designed to bridge the gap between research and practice ...thereby striving to
100
overcome the perceived persistent failure of research to impact on, or improve, practice…[It] combines diagnosis, action and reflection...focusing on practical issues that have been identified by participants and which are somehow both problematic yet capable of being changed. (344-345)
Cohen et al. (2011, p. 347) draw upon Kemmis and McTaggart (1988), who summarise the key principles of action research. Their list is comprehensive and lengthy, so below are some of the concepts paraphrased, which are particularly relevant to this thesis. Action Research:
• develops through the self-reflective spiral: planning, acting (implementing plans), observing (systematically), reflecting...and then re-planning, further
implementations, observing and reflecting;
• starts small, working through changes a single person can try, and works towards extensive changes — even critiques of ideas or institutions which might lead to reforms of classroom, school or system-wide policies;
• starts with small groups, but gradually includes more and more of those involved and affected by the practices in question; and
• involves people theorising and being inquisitive about their practices, circumstances, action and consequences, and coming to understand the relationships among these in their own lives.
Action research has extensive scope: it could be used by an individual or groups of teachers, teachers from the same or different schools, and/or researchers and teachers working collaboratively (Cohen et al., 2011, p. 344). As McKernan (1988) argues, one of the purposes of action research is to “solve pressing day-today practical problems” and “curriculum research ought to be based on teachers’ work…and researched by teachers” (p. 154). It could also be used to investigate numerous aspects of education, such as “teaching methods — replacing a traditional method by a discovery method…[and] continuing professional development of teachers [emphasis added] — improving teaching skills, developing new methods of learning, increasing powers of analysis, of heightening self-awareness” (Cohen et al., 2011, p. 344).
101 Review your current practice Identify an aspect to improve Imagine a way forward in this Try it out Monitor and reflect on what happens
Modify the plan and continue
Evaulate the modified action These aspects of action research align with aims of the
Ph.D. research to adapt the Bridge21 pedagogy for teaching new literacies in the English education context, to evaluate its impact on students’ attitudes, and to share the approach/resources with other practitioners and investigate their experiences using them.
Design-Based Research (DBR) is a methodological framework with similar qualities to AR; Anderson and Shattuck (2012) define DBR as “a methodology designed by and for educators that seeks to increase the impact, transfer, and translation of education research into improved practice” (p. 16). Ann Brown is credited with first developing the methodology in 1992, arguing that “effective intervention should be able to migrate from our experimental classroom to average classrooms operated by and for average students and teachers, supported by realistic technological and personal support” (p. 143). DBR has only begun to take prominence in education research in the last 20 years and mostly in the United States; currently, DBR is increasingly becoming a more internationally recognised and utilised approach (Anderson & Shattuck, 2012).
DBR is similar to AR in its practical approach to educational research, involving an iterative process of creating learning
interventions. Moreover, it seeks to improve teaching practice and “to advance theoretical agenda, to uncover, explore, and confirm theoretical relationships” (Barab & Squire, 2004, p. 5). DBR emphasises that this process occurs through the collaboration of practitioners and researchers, and an intention to create design principles that transcend the specific learning environment/context, where the research develops (Barab & Squire, 2004). As briefly noted earlier (section 3.3), DBR is currently the main research methodology used
Figure 4.2: Stages of Action Research (McNiff, 2002)
102
within the Bridge21 research programme, and it was therefore also considered as a viable approach in this research.
Though they are similar approaches to education research in their practicality and aim to influence educational practices, the researcher ultimately determined AR was more suitable for this research. As this research was initiated from the author’s experience of teaching in a traditional secondary school environment, it aligned more with the “teacher-as-researcher” movement (Stenhouse, 1975), which relates to the individualistic side of action research (Whitehead, 1985) – as compared to DBR, which relies on collaboration with practitioners. As an individual practitioner, she could take the first steps in an AR cycle (see Figure 4.2), such as the one outlined by McNiff (2002). Lewin (1946) argued that to maintain scientific rigor, AR uses “a spiral of steps, each of which is composed of a circle of planning, action, and fact-finding about the result of the action” (p. 38). This cycle of the Stages of AR (McNiff, 2002) could support the researcher in framing her work. The first few stages include the identification of the issues and development of a hypothesis to address the problems. The next few stages involve investigation and iterations of action, reflection, evaluation, and modification. Thus, the researcher could engage in the cycle by asking herself, “‘What do I see as my problem?’ ‘What do I see as a possible solution?’ ‘How can I direct the solution?’ ‘How can I evaluate the outcomes and take subsequent action?’” (Cohen et al., 2011, p. 348).
While she would eventually need to coordinate with members of the Bridge21 research team and occasionally with teachers to “try out” (McNiff, 2002) her proposed possible solutions, she would primarily be responsible for designing and implementing the learning interventions; collecting and analysing the data; and modifying, implementing and evaluating the new plan of action.
Essentially, an AR approach of engaging in a disciplined and rigorous cycle of research [planning, acting (implementing plans), observing (systematically), reflecting, and repeating as necessary] (Lewin, 1946; McNiff, 2002) could support the researcher in meeting the aims of this research (1.1.4).
103
Indeed the aims of this research also aligned more with AR than DBR. For example, the author aimed to closely examine the Bridge21 approach for teaching and learning new literacies in English and its impact on students – and she aimed to share the results of the research with other educators, so they could implement changes in their classrooms (Cohen et al., 2011). As previously stated, AR starts small, working through changes a single person can try, and works towards extensive changes — even critiquing ideas or institutions which might lead to reforms of classroom, school or system-wide policies (Kemmis & McTaggart, 1992). Essentially, the researcher could first iterate through the steps of action research herself – developing the Bridge21 approach for teaching new literacies and broadening her understanding of the theory. Then she could move on to sharing her findings and resources with other educators and begin to make changes on a larger scale. This research process, however, did not include some key goals of DBR. For example, DBR has a focus on the development of practical design principles that can transcend learning environments, which was not an aim of this research (Barab & Squire, 2004).
One final note on action research: AR is typically a “political” process because it aims to make changes to a social situation; accordingly, a researcher makes value judgments about society and has an agenda. As explained in section 2.2, the researcher believes that English education should help foster the individual growth of all students through enriching their understanding of culturally significant texts and developing the literacy skills students need to participate fully in society. In order to do this, students must also be engaged in the learning process. In this research process, the researcher made value judgments about what constitutes literacy; she also has a particular ‘agenda’ to ensure that today’s students are equipped with these skills – implying that the current education system is not adequately preparing students with the skills they need. Therefore, she aims to make changes to her own teaching practices, as well as those of others. This position, however, is not akin to the more specific branch of Action Research, called participatory action research (PAR) (see Freire, 1972). PAR emphasises social justice and empowering the participants, usually of disadvantaged backgrounds, through their active involvement in the research process and an examination of the institutionalised boundaries that reinforce their disadvantaged status (Cohen et al., 2011). Though the study, based within the Bridge21 context and the schools with which the programme typically collaborates, did involve several students from
104
‘disadvantaged backgrounds,’ it did not involve the students in a process of critically examining their socio-economic statuses and the ways and means in which institutional boundaries or the curriculum reinforce them.