The Music Education Program is funded by the ACT Government primarily as a means of supporting a tertiary music institution in the provision of informed, expert professional development to systemic teachers. As part of the Australian National University, it is appropriate that the program has a research brief. Such a brief, however, while being of interest to the territory
government, was not part of its funding contract, which was specifically interested in the development of initiatives that were fed directly to teachers for implementation in the classroom.
Such an imperative ensured that an action research model was of most value in documenting the findings of the program. Since I, as principal researcher, was also practicing with both children and teachers in the system, a practitioner action research model was most appropriate.
Action research is defined in various, related ways in the literature. According to definitions summarised by Cohen et al (2000), it involves a ‘combination of action and research (that) renders that action a form of disciplined inquiry in which a personal attempt is made to understand, improve and reform practice’ (p.226). They quote Kemmis and McTaggert who suggest that action research is ‘concerned equally with changing individuals, on the one hand, and, on the other, the culture of the groups, institutions and societies to which they belong’ (Cohen, p.227). The idea of improvement or change is central to the idea of action research. Altrichter et al (1993, p.4) write that:
The shortest and most straightforward definition of action research is given by John Elliott (1991:69), whose work has been influential in this 'movement': action research is 'the study of a social situation with a view to improving the quality of action within it'. This simple definition directs attention to one of the most essential motives for doing action research. It lies in the will to improve the quality of teaching and learning as well as the conditions under which teachers and students work in schools. Action research is intended to support teachers, and groups of teachers, in coping with the challenges and problems of practice and carrying through innovations in a reflective way.
Action research is designed to be ‘carried out by practitioners in the actual practice setting’ and ‘provides a way of working which links theory and practice into the one whole: ideas-in-action’ (Kuhne and Quigley, 1997, p.24). It is a form of research often undertaken by those primarily engaged in practice, rather than basic research. According to Goodfellow (2005) summarising the work of others:
It also involves meaning-making and a responsibility to make that meaning known (Fasoli & Ford, 200t). Practitioner research within teacher education is most often regarded as
research undertaken by practising teachers who seek to improve practice through purposeful and critical examination of, and reflection on, their work. Such introspection is designed to increase awareness of the bases of professional actions, decisions, and judgements enabling these teachers to see their practices anew, and recognise and articulate the complexities of their work and the values that lie at the heart of professional practice (Cochran-Smith, 2005; Stremmel, 2002).
It includes the idea that practitioners are able to engage in ‘systematic and critical inquiry … of their practices (and) requires what Fish describes as 'a discerning eye' (Fish, 1999, p.195) as well as the capacity to make judgements against theoretical underpinnings and norms of personal/professional practice’ (Goodfellow, 2005).
Practitioner research is also generally, but not exclusively, viewed as a group method, most particularly with all individuals working collaboratively and engaging in joint decision making (Heron & Reason, 2001; Reason, 1988). On the other hand one early advocate of the ‘teacher as researcher’ model, Lawrence Stenhouse felt that the teacher would require the support of an ‘expert’. Stenhouse also believed that teachers should act as both evaluators and agents of change, as is the case here (Goodfellow, 2005).
The practitioner research model adopted in the Music Education Program combines collaboration with students and teachers with an individual leadership role being taken by myself as principal investigator. In taking such a role, I have responded necessarily to the way in which the Music Education Program is designed to function within its two systems but also provide some solutions to the types of problems raised by Goodfellow (2005) with regard to practitioner research. Her study looked at such research in the early childhood sector and she noted a range of challenges to practitioner research:
• the capacity of participants to reflect on interactions and practices (Ryan, Ochsner & Genishi, 2001);
• the lack of familiarity of participants with research processes and methodologies and uncertainty about how to translate research findings into everyday practices (McCrystal, 2000);
• the often-needed requirement to have someone with 'research expertise' as a facilitator; and • time and motivation on the part of participants.
By acting as facilitator and developing approaches that were immediately tested with children and teachers, I offered the required expertise in the disciplines of music and education, while creating a simple theoretical construct from the ‘everyday practices’ in which we were all engaged. The model does not predicate a rigorous methodological application in the classroom. It offers a framework for deciding on activity and suggestions for activity without prescribing that activity. Teachers engaged in the program were offered professional development that provided space and time to ‘reflect on interactions and practices’, but the model developed also made it imperative that teachers continue this reflection as part of their classroom practice. The research approach was by no means egalitarian in allowing equal decision-making power to all involved but it necessarily had to respond to teacher input in order to ensure that teachers continued to access the Program. I led the development of the Program but in consultation with a range of other professionals, in particular the teachers who were adopting the approach. Thus, responsiveness to a range of students and teachers in a range of school environments was both a necessary part of the Program’s survival and a key to its research agenda.
Dick (1993) comments that ‘all else being equal, responsiveness and rigour are both virtues. In a change program you need responsiveness. If you can achieve it in ways which allow some replicability, so much the better.’ In the Music Education Program responsiveness to school-based needs, as well as political imperatives, included the need to develop an approach that was replicatable within a range of different school environments. Both theoretical construct and practice needed to be simple and non-threatening to teachers from varying music backgrounds while still having value as part of an elite music conservatory.
Action research is often characterised as a repeating spiral of intention, action and review. Bob Dick, in discussing action research, offers a model based on the learning cycle developed by Kolb:
While repeated experimentation, reflection and generalisation is an ongoing part of the Program’s research and development, these cycles are not reported here. Rather, this thesis attempts to provide a ‘snapshot’ of the current theoretical model of the Program (Section Three), and how it works in practice, in comparison with the theoretical model derived from the literature on the ‘traditional’ model for musical development (Section Two).