Action Research Framework
In ECI 523, we learned about the Action Research framework as proposed by Valsa Koshy in his text, Action Research for Improving Educational Practice. In order to determine how service learning helped students to think globally, I chose to use an action research approach because it is particularly suited to the teacher-researcher and is generally used by educators who are studying their own students. In action research, the primary role of the researcher is actually that of a teacher. This is in contrast to other research models in which the researcher's primary role is research.
As a framework for my study, I used the points of purpose for conducting action research as outlined by Koshy (2010). They are:
This framework provided the best fit for my overall objectives for this study because I was able to modify and adjust my study as new information was collected. Since I conducted this study over two years with two different cohorts of students, using action research allowed me to implement new strategies and techniques from one year to the next, which resulted in a better educational experience for my students.
According to Koshy (2010), action research originated with Kurt Lewin’s research in the mid-1940s and evolved throughout the 1970s in the United Kingdom with the research of Lawrence Stenhouse and others (p. 3). In the United States, action research came about primarily through the work of universities and classroom teachers who wanted to take a pedagogical approach to curriculum development (p. 4).
In undertaking an action research project, I first reviewed several action research models, all with the basic aspects of planning, implementing, revising, re-implementing, and reflecting. In my action research, I most closely followed the models presented by Kemmis and McTaggart (2000) and O’Leary (2004). Kemmis and McTaggart (2000) suggest a spiral model in which the actions of planning, acting and observing, reflecting, and revising repeat themselves infinitely as a spiral would (as cited in Koshy 2010, p. 4). O’Leary (2004) presents an action research model that is cyclical, and is very similar to Kemmis and McTaggart’s spiral model, with the main difference being the division of action and observation, and the removal of the explicit revision step. Rather, they label this step “plan” and it is implied that this plan will include a revision of the previous plan. Koshy (2010) notes that O’Leary’s (2004) cycles “converge towards better situation understanding and improved action implementation” (p. 7). In my action research, I continually revised my methods as I observed and collected new information. I relied primarily on my own observations and reflections to formulate new strategies and implement new plans. For example, from year one to year two, I drastically modified the pitch portion of this project. During the first year, I realized that the students' pitches were not as polished as I would have liked for them to be. While they had included all of the information they needed to include, their presentation skills were not where they should have been. In year two, I incorporated lessons on presentation and allowed students to analyze and evaluate other speakers and practice the skills that they had seen other speakers use. As a result, the presentations with the year two cohort were much more polished.
As a framework for my study, I used the points of purpose for conducting action research as outlined by Koshy (2010). They are:
- Action research is a method used for improving educational practice. It involves action, evaluation and reflection and, based on gathered evidence, changes in practice are implemented.
- Action research is participative and collaborative; it is undertaken by individuals, with a common purpose.
- It is situation-based.
- It develops reflection based on the interpretations made by participants.
- Knowledge is created through action, and at the point of application.
- Action research can involve problem-solving, if the solution to the problem leads to the improvement of practice.
- In action research findings emerge as action develops, but they are not conclusive or absolute. (p. 2-3)
This framework provided the best fit for my overall objectives for this study because I was able to modify and adjust my study as new information was collected. Since I conducted this study over two years with two different cohorts of students, using action research allowed me to implement new strategies and techniques from one year to the next, which resulted in a better educational experience for my students.
According to Koshy (2010), action research originated with Kurt Lewin’s research in the mid-1940s and evolved throughout the 1970s in the United Kingdom with the research of Lawrence Stenhouse and others (p. 3). In the United States, action research came about primarily through the work of universities and classroom teachers who wanted to take a pedagogical approach to curriculum development (p. 4).
In undertaking an action research project, I first reviewed several action research models, all with the basic aspects of planning, implementing, revising, re-implementing, and reflecting. In my action research, I most closely followed the models presented by Kemmis and McTaggart (2000) and O’Leary (2004). Kemmis and McTaggart (2000) suggest a spiral model in which the actions of planning, acting and observing, reflecting, and revising repeat themselves infinitely as a spiral would (as cited in Koshy 2010, p. 4). O’Leary (2004) presents an action research model that is cyclical, and is very similar to Kemmis and McTaggart’s spiral model, with the main difference being the division of action and observation, and the removal of the explicit revision step. Rather, they label this step “plan” and it is implied that this plan will include a revision of the previous plan. Koshy (2010) notes that O’Leary’s (2004) cycles “converge towards better situation understanding and improved action implementation” (p. 7). In my action research, I continually revised my methods as I observed and collected new information. I relied primarily on my own observations and reflections to formulate new strategies and implement new plans. For example, from year one to year two, I drastically modified the pitch portion of this project. During the first year, I realized that the students' pitches were not as polished as I would have liked for them to be. While they had included all of the information they needed to include, their presentation skills were not where they should have been. In year two, I incorporated lessons on presentation and allowed students to analyze and evaluate other speakers and practice the skills that they had seen other speakers use. As a result, the presentations with the year two cohort were much more polished.