ARTS EDUCATION POLICY REVIEW, 112: 8994, 2011 Copyright C Taylor & Francis Group, LLC ISSN: 1063-2913

DOI: 10.1080/10632913.2011.546697

Action Research as a Professional Development Activity

Chad West
Ithaca College, Ithaca, New York, USA

Reective teachers are always searching for ways to improve their teaching. When this reection becomes intentional and systematic, they are engaging in teacher research. This type of research, sometimes called action research, can help bridge the gap between theory and practice by addressing topics that are relevant to practicing teachers. This article synthesizes literature within music education and general education to address (a) the conceptual underpinnings of action research, (b) characteristics of action research and teacher research, (c) action research critiques, and (d) implications for teacher research as a form of professional development. Keywords: action research, professional development, teacher research

Most research done in music education fails to have any impact simply because the problems selected are not seen as problems by those who presumably would benet from their solution. (Regelski 1994, 79)

CONCEPTUAL UNDERPINNINGS OF ACTION RESEARCH In the 1960s and 1970s, scholars began conducting research with a more humanistic approach as a counter to what they viewed as a positivistic worldview that ignored human subjectivity. Elliott explains that as part of this emphasis on the whole person, educational research broadened to include Action Research, Ethnography, Narrative Inquiry, Critical Theory, Feminist Inquiry, and Postmodernism (2002, 87). During this time, a movement emerged advocating the recognition of schoolteachers as authorities in their own right, rather than as mere recipients of university-generated knowledge (Doyle 1990; Shulman 1987), compelling many to advocate the use of action research. To help explain the conceptual underpinnings of contemporary action research, one can look to the conclusions drawn by Levin and Merritts (2006) special focus edition of Teacher Education Quarterly, which centered on the topic of action research for empowerment and transformation. In this issue, the editors identied common characteristics of action research, including (a) practical inquiry, (b) transformation, and (c) method. Practical Inquiry Action research can be seen as a way for teachers to answer questions that puzzle them (Conway and Jeffers 2004; Robbins 2007). Cochran-Smith and Lytle (1999) describe this process as practical inquiry, emphasizing its utility as a way to generate or enhance practical knowledge. A growing

I once had a colleague who kept a pen and pad by his bed for times when he awakened at night with a good idea to try in class the next day. Although not all of us wake up in the middle of the night with new teaching ideas, most of us do continually generate thoughts about how to help our students learn. Which pedagogical techniques work best? Which sequence makes more sense? How can I create a more inviting learning environment? What motivates my students? The list goes on. Many teachers nd that they can begin to answer these questions through conducting research within their own classrooms. This type of research is broadly referred to as teacher research and, within certain parameters, action research. This article synthesizes literature within the elds of music education and general education to address (a) the conceptual underpinnings of action research, (b) characteristics of action research and teacher research, (c) action research critiques, and (d) implications for teacher research as a form of professional development.

Correspondence should be sent to Chad West, 182 Ludlowville Road, Lansing, NY 14882, USA. E-mail: cwest@ithaca.edu

90

WEST

number of national conferences include a signicant number of teacher researchers as presenters. The American Educational Research Association, for example, supports active special interest groups focusing on teacher research, action research, and self-study research.

Method While Sagor (1992) and Glanz (1998) suggest ways of conducting action research, Greenwood and Levin point out that action research is not a method of conducting research, but a way of collaboratively orchestrating social research processes to enhance liberating social change processes (2007, 101). The authors note that action research can adopt almost any research technique found in the sciences, social sciences, and humanities when such a technique is contextually appropriate to a collaboratively orchestrated research process, including quantitative research, qualitative research, mixedmethod research, and hermeneutic dialogues. Although action research is not rooted in any particular research method, it is situated epistemologically on the continuum that Greenwood and Levin describe as rejecting both unquestioned authority and realism-positivism as reasonable approaches to social learning and social change (2007, 75). These scholars point out that this approach also rejects pure relativism and an uncritical commitment to the group it serves and acts as a form of discussion, of critical communication that generates new. . . knowledge (75).

Transformation The concept of transformation in teacher research underscores how such research can alter traditional power structures pertaining to knowledge. Leglar and Collay point out:
The triumph of the objectivist, scientic paradigm during the rst part of the 20th century had far-reaching implications for almost every aspect of research on teaching. The disregard for nonquantiable practitioner knowledge not only constrained knowledge about teacher knowing; it also severely limited the potential of teachers to legitimize their profession. Missing from the knowledge base of teaching were the voices of teachers themselves, the questions teachers ask, the ways teachers use writing and intentional talk in their work lives, and the interpretive frames teachers use to understand and improve their own classroom practices. (2002, 856)

In the same vein, Cochran-Smith and Lytle (1999) describe how the transformative element of action research, which is grounded in critical social theory and oriented toward the goal of social change, emphasizes the role of teacher research in the construction of a more just and democratic society. The collaborative construction of knowledge by teachers, students, administrators, parents, and academics is understood as a platform for developing more equitable social relations. Because teacher research is seen as a tool for effecting classroom and school change, the object of this approach is to transform rather than simply describe school or classroom settings. Signicantly, neither Sagor (1992) nor Glanz (1998) includes literature review as a step of the action research process. Sagor observes that for many rst-time action researchers, a trip to the library is a turn-off. After all, as full-time teachers, they are primarily interested in matters of practice, not research. A day off from the classroom to peruse journals doesnt, on the surface, seem like a worthwhile investment of time (1992, 23). Such a statement not only underscores the pragmatic reasons that compel teacher research, but also quietly suggests that what is valuable about teacher research is ones personal experience with the topic, a notion supported by constructivist learning theories. This avoidance of the literature review may also stem from the fact that one of the aims of action research is to weaken power structures dened by traditional gatekeepers of knowledge. Consequently, it is no surprise that action researchers would avoid the linchpins that hold those structures in placein this case, literature from books and journals.

CHARACTERISTICS OF ACTION RESEARCH AND TEACHER RESEARCH Action Research Several competing denitions of the term action research have been proposed since Lewins (1946) original description of the approach as a three-step spiraling process of planning, implementing, and assessing ones research. Seven years later, Corey (1953) made no mention of a spiraling process when he described action research as a process by which practitioners scientically study their problems in order to guide, correct, and evaluate their decisions and actions. Calhouns denition is even more relaxed: Lets study whats happening at our school and decide how to make it a better place (1994, 11). This denition bears similarities to Cochran-Smith and Lytles teacher research, which they describe as any systematic, intentional inquiry by teachers (1993, 53). If one accepts Calhouns denition, any type of teacher research could be considered action research. However, if one accepts Lewins denition, only research containing a spiraling component would be considered action research. To help illustrate the spiraling nature of action research, one can look at Glanzs (1998) model: (a) select a focus, (b) collect data, (c) analyze and interpret the data, (d) take action, (e) reect, and (f ) continue or modify actionswhich leads to the identication of a new focus and begins the process anew. At rst glance, it seems that Cochran-Smith and Lytles (1993) teacher research would likely involve the same components of action research that Glanz illustrates. However, drawing on Glanzs (1998) model and Lewins (1946)

TEACHER RESEARCH

91

denition, teacher research becomes action research at the point at which the teachers ndings compel a new direction in his or her practices or a new study in his or her classroom. Thus, the spiraling aspect of action research occurs when knowledge is derived from practice and practice is informed by knowledge in an ongoing (spiraling) process. According to Jordan, Henry, and Sutton, this give and take of question, implementation, reection, change practice, question, implementation, reection, change practice is representative of the spiraling nature of the action research process (2000, 3). To illustrate Glanzs (1998) model of action research, Green, Britt, and Parker (2002) conducted a study in which a university faculty member, university student, and public school teacher collaborated to nd ways to better promote literacy in their kindergarten class. They focused on the challenge of enticing children to visit the reading center more frequently when also faced with the choice of visiting writing, art, and computer centers. After collecting and analyzing the data, the researchers found that more students visited the reading center when the teacher rst read them a story. The process of data collection and analysis compelled the researchers to reect on what was happening in the classroom and modify their actions accordingly. Speaking with the students who never visited the reading center suggested new directions (e.g., hand-picking books of interest, changing books in baskets, making lists of popular books with children), which allowed the researchers to continue the spiraling process. Teacher Research Robbins, Burbank, and Dunkle (2007) offer a model of teacher research specically oriented to music education. Robbins, a university researcher, helped two music teachers enrolled in a music education masters program conduct teacher research projects based on teachers interests. One teacher wanted to nd out what her students were learning in music class, if they had any questions, what interested them, and what creative aspects of music stood out to them. Additionally, she wondered if she could nd similarities among her three diverse schools. The second teacher was interested in world music and her choice of repertoire. She wondered what compelled her to select some songs over others and how she might help her students relate to musical traditions other than their own. The Robbins, Burbank, and Dunkle (2007) study does not refer to this research as action research, but rather uses the term teacher research. This terminology seems accurate, since the authors made no mention of whether the teachers ndings led to new directions for further investigation. Robbins, Burbank, and Dunkle do not mention what motivated these two teachers to conduct research in their classrooms, although they do mention that the teachers were undertaking these projects over the course of their masters programs. Such a statement indicates that the research was compelled, at

least in part, by the need to fulll degree requirements. These teachers studies thus t the model of teacher research, in that each involved systematic and intentional inquiry and the projects were relevant to each teachers particular classroom setting and borne from each teachers personal curiosities. Collaborative Action Research Some scholars use the term collaborative action research to describe teachers working together to conduct research (Jordan, Henry, and Sutton 2000; Sagor 1992). Jordan, Henry, and Sutton (2000) facilitated a collaborative action research project involving thirteen teachers within a Nebraska school district. These teachers developed teams, which collectively determined the focus of research. The teams met twice a month to receive mentoring in qualitative research skills and strategies and gather data, reect on the data, and modify instruction. By the end of the school year, all teams completed a written summary of their research and presented their research in a public forum. This example illustrates the potential of collaborative work among teachers in conducting research. However, collaborative action research can also refer to practitioners collaborating with university researchers (Feldman 1993). Conway and Borst suggest that although it may be difcult for K12 music teachers to nd time to design and implement research . . ., collaboration with the university professor, for whom research is part of the job expectation, makes equal-partner action research a possibility (2001, 3). Conway and Jeffers (2004) describe a collaborative action research process used in a beginning instrumental music classs examination of assessment procedures. Jeffers, a veteran elementary instrumental music teacher, wanted to develop and examine various assessment procedures that would support the teaching techniques he had learned in a summer workshop. As the university researcher, Conway gathered existing literature on the topic of assessment in beginning instrumental music. The two researchers discussed issues of data collection and design and developed research questions together. Jeffers collected student data and developed student and parent questionnaires, which Conway reviewed before their distribution. Conway conducted phone interviews with parents and developed an interview protocol, on which Jeffers commented before using. Jeffers made a video recording of his teaching and sent it to Conway to provide her with the opportunity to view Jeffers and his students in context. Both researchers listened to the student interview tapes and examined the student and parent questionnaire data. Such collaboration between an experienced researcher and an experienced practitioner resulted in the completion of a methodologically sound study of a topic relevant to the practitioner. The degree to which the researcher and practitioner worked together at each phase of the project and to which the individual strengths of each was used provides

92

WEST

an excellent model of collaboration that benets both the practitioner and the research community. However, such a model could be challenging to implement in situations in which either the researcher or the practitioner is reluctant to redene traditional roles and power structures.

ACTION RESEARCH CRITIQUES Several critiques of the teacher research movement have emerged from scholars both within and outside of education urging practitioners to critically assess the practice of teacher research. Cochran-Smith and Lytle (1999) describe three main critiques of the process: (a) the knowledge critique, (b) the methods critique, and (c) the ends critique. Knowledge Critique The knowledge critique focuses on the epistemological issue of what kind of knowledge, if any, is generated when teachers conduct research about their own schools and classrooms (Fenstermacher 1994; Richardson 1994). Action researchers often assume that a formal knowledge about teaching exists that is distinguishable from informal practical knowledge. The knowledge critique suggests that teacherconducted research cannot generate knowledge about teaching, learning, and schooling unless it is governed by the same epistemological traditions as research intended to generate formal knowledge. Methods Critique In the methods critique of the teacher research movement, critics such as Huberman (1996) point out that it is difcult, if not impossible, to understand events when one is a participant in them. Such a critique has been leveled not only at action researchers, but also at many postmodern researchers who conduct phenomenological, narrative, or ethnographic research. Ends Critique The ends critique, which is rooted in critical theory, argues that although teacher research has the potential to fundamentally alter the nature of practice and the role of teachers, its power is severely diminished if it is used to perpetuate the status quo (Noffke 1997; Zeichner 1994). These critics argue that teacher research should be rooted in an understanding of social structures and should possess the objective of changing them. They point out that this motivating factor is often ignored in the traditional teacher research classes (Kincheloe 1991, 71), leading to an inadvertent solidication of former practices and traditional power structures.

Levels of Collaboration Sagor (1992) has written about his experiences conducting collaborative action research with hundreds of teachers through a consortium called Project LEARN (denoting the League of Educational Action Researchers in the Northwest). In Project LEARN, teams of teachers worked collaboratively to conduct research in their classrooms with the intent of informing and improving their practice. Sagor suggests that when teams work collaboratively to conduct research, some groups will share a single mind and purpose while others will be more diverse in their interests. The author situates various levels of collaboration in collaborative action research groups along a three-point continuum: (a) a team works on separate studies of varying topics while sharing a general focus, (b) a team works on separate studies but shares a single or similar topic, and (c) a team works together on a single study. In the instance in which a team works on separate studies of varying topics while sharing a general focus, one might imagine a scenario among a group of music educators in which one team member is studying students musical cognitive processes, another is studying gender issues in the classroom, and a third is studying childrens music composition processes. The general focus of such a team is teaching and learning within the music education classroom. Although each team member has chosen a different topic within the general focus and each team member will conduct a separate study, such a team could still benet from the collaboration and consultation made available through the research process. At the middle point of the continuum, where a team works on separate studies but shares a single or similar topic, one might imagine a scenario in which a team of music education action researchers are all interested in student motivation, but one team member is studying motivation in relation to achievement, another is studying motivation in relation to retention, and a third is studying motivation in relation to self-esteem. Such a team would share a similar topic, although each individual would be conducting a separate research study to examine the topic through a different lens. This team could still benet from meeting regularly to share knowledge on the common interest areathat is, motivation. At the most collaborative end of the continuum would be a team that shares a common focus. Such a team would be interested in the same issue and would collaborate to pursue a common interest by engaging in a single action research project.

IMPLICATIONS FOR PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT Sagor (1992) points out that teachers are more isolated and enjoy less collaborative interaction with one another throughout the day than many professionals in elds outside of education. Such isolation is seldom found among other professionals such as engineers, who work collaboratively to

TEACHER RESEARCH

93

develop new prototypes and designs; doctors, who discuss various treatments with their colleagues; and lawyers, who work on teams and consult with colleagues on trial strategies. Teachers, on the other hand, rarely collaborate or even consult one another, except in predetermined, highly structured staff meetings and professional development in-service activities. Professional development activities for teachers have long been dissimilar to their counterparts in other professions such as medicine, law, and engineering. Sagor (1992) points out that most other professionals contribute to their professional knowledge base in a variety of ways. For example, doctors often study their patients and then disseminate their ndings in medical research journals. Such a model blurs the lines between practitioner and researcher and underscores the signicance and relevance of research to practice. This close relationship between research and practice can also be seen in the elds of engineering, in which engineers learn continually from their colleagues and use their work to inform the next generation of professionals; architecture, in which architects draw plans based on the work of other architects; and law, in which lawyers construct briefs and legal arguments based on the experience of other lawyers. However, such models do not exist in education, for which research is conducted by university-based researchers who are often far removed from the classroom. This divide between research and practice has posed a problem for education since the 1930s, when university professors began distinguishing themselves as either researchers or teacher educators (Leglar and Collay 2002). This practice further solidied the boundaries between research and practice. Furthermore, in most professional elds outside of teaching, the people doing the job are also the people responsible for assessing the quality of work. That is, most professionals outside of the eld of education serve as both practitioners in their eld and internal quality control agents. For instance, based on the needs of their patients, doctors determine the particular professional development areas they will pursue. Engineers and lawyers decide which educational opportunities to explore based on their immediate self-perceived needs. This process differs greatly in the eld of education, in which district-sponsored professional development activities are often determined by supervisors. Often, principals, district-level administrators, legislators, and other powerful stakeholders decide which educational and developmental topics teachers will pursue, without regard to the needs that the teachers themselves perceive. Sagor (1992) contends that this practice situates teaching as more of a blue-collar job than a profession. Stanley points out that this approach is common within music education and urges administrators to avoid one-shot inservice workshops that feature knowledgeable experts telling teachers how to do something (2008, 8). Previous literature within the eld of music education encourages the use of teacher research in addressing contemporary and relevant issues within the profession (Conway and

Borst 2001; Conway and Jeffers 2004; Leglar and Collay 2002; Regelski 1994; Robbins, Burbank, and Dunkle 2007). In addition to helping address issues that are important to practicing music teachers, teacher research can become a meaningful form of professional development. Conway and Jeffers (2004) describe how collaborative teacher research can help experienced music teachers develop professionally in ways that other more traditional professional development activities cannot. Conway suggests that researchers continue to explore. . . teacher research, and other professional development strategies (2007, 59), since teacher research may be the most obvious way to meet many of the [current] professional development challenges (60). Hookey called for such an approach several years prior: Research carried out by teachers or other practitioners represents a signicant opportunity for professional development (2002, 890). While teacher research could become a meaningful learning opportunity for music teachers at any stage of their careers, it could be most benecial to teachers late in their careers. Music teachers professional development needs change throughout their careers (Conway 2008), and it may be that engagement in teacher research could benet veteran music teachers who are tired of traditional forms of professional development. These experienced teachers questions about teaching and learning might not be able to be answered through traditional professional development routes but could be addressed through the conduct of their own research.

CONCLUSION While the differences between action research and teacher research may seem to be a question of semantics, systematic and intentional inquiry carried out by teachers could offer rich information about real-life issues facing todays arts programs and deserves the attention of stakeholders in higher education. University faculty could offer these teachers their research expertise to help produce studies that are both relevant and methodologically sound. In addition to contributing relevant information to the research community, these teachers would become more critical practitioners and more vested consumers of research in their eld. There are roadblocks, however, to collaborations between university faculty and school arts teachers in conducting research. While social critical theorists may applaud teacher research and its ability to empower teachers by altering the traditional role the university has played as the custodian of knowledge, the collaborative teacher researcher model can be jarring for teachers who expect the university to play a more distributive role in the delivery of professional development. Collaborative action research as a model of professional development requires both groups to navigate unfamiliar territory and redene traditionally assumed roles.

94

WEST Elliott, D. J. 2002. Philosophical perspectives on research. In The new handbook of music teaching and learning, ed. R. Colwell and C. P. Richardson, 85102. New York: Oxford University Press. Feldman, A. 1993. Promoting equitable collaboration between university researchers and school teachers. Qualitative Studies in Education 64 (4): 34157. Fenstermacher, C. 1994. The knower and the known: The nature of knowledge in research on teaching. In Review of research in education, ed. Linda Darling-Hammond, vol. 20, 356. Washington, DC: American Educational Research Association. Glanz, J. 1998. Action research: An educational leaders guide to school improvement. Norwood, MA: Christopher-Gordon. Green, S. K., C. Britt, and P. Parker. 2002. When do they choose the reading center? Promoting literacy in a kindergarten classroom. Reading Horizons 43 (2): 10313. Greenwood, D. J., and M. Levin. 2007. Introduction to action research: Social research for social change, 2nd ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Hookey, M. 2002. Professional development. In The new handbook of music teaching and learning, ed. R. Colwell and C. P. Richardson, 887904. New York: Oxford University Press. Huberman, M. 1996. Focus on research moving mainstream: Taking a closer look at teacher research. Language Arts 73 (2): 12440. Jordan, D. L., M. A. Henry, and J. T. Sutton. 2000. Changing Omaha classrooms: Collaborative action research efforts. Aurora, CO: Mid-Continent Research for Education and Learning. Kincheloe, J. 1991. Teachers as researchers: Qualitative inquiry as a path to empowerment. London: Falmer. Leglar, M., and M. Collay. 2002. Research by teachers on teacher education. In The new handbook of research on music teaching and learning, ed. R. Colwell and C. P. Richardson, 85573. New York: Oxford University Press. Levin, B. B., and S. P. Merritt. 2006. Guest editors introduction: Action research for teacher empowerment and transformation. Teacher Education Quarterly 33 (3): 36. Lewin, K. 1946. Action research and minority problems. Journal of Social Issues 2:3446. Noffke, S. 1997. Professional, personal, and political dimensions of action research. In Review of research in education, ed. M. Apple, 30543. Washington, DC: American Educational Research Association. Regelski, T. A. 1994. Action research and critical theory: Empowering music teachers to professionalize practice. Bulletin of the Council for Research in Music Education 123:6389. Richardson, V. 1994. Conducting research on practice. Educational Researcher 23 (5): 510. Robbins, J., M. K. Burbank, and H. Dunkle. 2007. Teacher research: Tales from the eld. Journal of Music Teacher Education 17:4255. Sagor, R. 1992. How to conduct collaborative action research. Alexandria, VA: ASCD. Shulman, J. H. 1987. Knowledge and teaching: Foundations of the new reform. Harvard Educational Review 57 (1): 122. Stanley, A. M. 2008. The experiences of elementary music teachers in a collaborative teacher study group. Ph.D. diss., University of Michigan. Zeichner, K. M. 1994. Personal renewal and social construction through teacher research. In Teacher research and educational reform, ed. S. Hollingsworth and H. Sockett, 6684. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

Some individuals in higher education might see collaborative action research as a threat. Finally, questions regarding research ownership can arise when collaborative teacher research is presented for promotion and tenure review. If we are to realize a scenario in which arts teachers are empowered to systematically explore their curiosities and inform their practice, we need to not only encourage teacher research among practicing arts teachers, but also instill in our undergraduate students a researchers habits of mind. Such a way of thinking about practice could inspire greater reectivity in students as they become practitioners and could provide space for them to continue their professional growth once they become practicing teachers. Teacher researchers/educators should be receptive to collaboration with practitioners. For such an outcome to be achieved, schools of education need to acknowledge collaborative teacher research as a worthy scholarly pursuit in tenure and promotion considerations. Finally, legislators, accrediting agencies, and school administrators need to acknowledge action research as a valid form of professional development and allow space for such activities to be conducted as a pathway for teachers to meet various continuing education requirements.

REFERENCES
Calhoun, E. F. 1994. How to use action research in the self-renewing school. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development. Cochran-Smith, M., and S. Lytle. 1993. Inside outside: Teacher research and knowledge. New York: Teachers College Press. . 1999. The teacher research movement: A decade later. Educational Researcher 28 (7): 1525. Conway, C. M. 2007. Setting an agenda for professional development policy, practice, and research in music education. Journal of Music Teacher Education 17 (1): 5661. . 2008. Experienced music teacher perceptions of professional development throughout their careers. Bulletin of the Council for Research in Music Education 176:718. Conway, C. M., and J. Borst. 2001. Action research in music education. Update: Applications of Research in Music Education 19 (2): 38. Conway, C. M., and T. Jeffers. 2004. The teacher as researcher in beginning instrumental music. Update: Applications of Research in Music Education 22 (2): 3545. Corey, S. 1953. Action research to improve school practices. New York: Teachers College Press. Doyle, W. 1990. Themes in teacher education research. In Handbook of research on teacher education, ed. W. R. Houston, M. Haberman, and J. Sikula, 324. New York: Macmillan.

Copyright of Arts Education Policy Review is the property of Taylor & Francis Ltd and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.