Participatory Action Research: A Vehicle for Empowering a Mentoring Community of Practice to Negotiate Power Blocks to Applying & Cascading their CPD: An Irish Perspective
Author(s):
Eimear Holland (presenting / submitting) Kathleen Armour
Conference:
ECER 2017
Format:
Paper

Session Information

01 SES 04 A JS, Professional Learning through Mentoring

Joint Paper Session NW 01 and NW 10

Time:
2017-08-23
09:00-10:30
Room:
K3.17
Chair:
Eimear Holland

Contribution

In 2013, the Teaching Council (TC) of Ireland attempted to follow the example of many countries both in European and world wide, by publishing ‘Guidelines on School Placement’. Unfortunately, many have argued that however necessary the guidelines were, the timing was ill-concieved (Sugrue and Solbrekke, 2017; Mulcahy and McSharry). Both past and recent literature has highlighted a vast array of barriers, which may shed some light on implementation challenges. These include cultural barriers e.g. a fear of evaluation (Hogan et al., 2007) as well as a “prevalence of professional insulation and isolation” (TC, 2010 p. 26) and ‘competitive individualism’ (Coolahan, 2003), which has led to a knowledge hoarding tradition (Cross, 1996). Other barriers associated with the global economic crisis include: eroded working conditions (ASTI, 2016), limited resources, record cuts, re-deployment threats (Mulcahy and McSharry, 2012), to name a few. Teacher Union critics claim that times of austerity have seen a narrowing scope, with the economic welfare of the teacher being priortised at the expense of the PD welfare of teachers (Poole, 2000). Moreover, a clarion call for ‘work to rule’ has led to CPD being seen as unpaid extra work (Bascia, 2001), and unions have asked teachers to cease engagement (ASTI, 2013). Given all of these issues alongside school placement being seen as “an exhausting experience” (O’Rourke, 2014, p. 6) which “can bring more burden than benefits” (Mulcahy and McSharry, 2012, p. 99), it is understandable that the participants’ colleagues’ levels of good will and volunteerism are low (ASTIR, 2014). As participants’ colleagues were less interested (Nowell, 2009) in school placement and were less committed to engage (Burns, 2007), there was a lack of consensus, which made collaboration less possible for participants (Lawlor, 2015). As such, ‘boundary spanning’ (Lindkvist, 2005) and the knowledge expansion (Bruce et al., 2011) of their colleagues was less likely, which made their capacity to affect change more difficult (Borzillo and Kaminska-Labbe, 2011).

 

Too often CPD implementation fails, not because the CPD did not inform and upskill, but because the schools in which teachers aim to apply it lack a supportive ‘critical hardware’ (Chevalier and Buckles, 2013). Whilst knowledge expansion is one outcome of effective CPD, “knowledge is power only for those who can use it to change their social conditions” (Shor, 1992, p. 6). Therefore, it is incumbent upon CPD providers to cater for the development of ‘flexible software processes’, which arm participants with the “skilful means to facilitate authentic dialogue and well informed reasoning” (Chevalier and Buckles, 2013, p. 84), in order to empower their colleagues (Ruechakul et al., 2015). The ‘Participatory Action Research’ (PAR) process is increasingly being accepted as an effective pedagogical vehicle for CPD (Anderson et al., 2015). It is particularly promoted for cultures where change is difficult to achieve and it emphasises that learning should go beyond the merely additive, to produce ‘transformative intellectuals’ (Aronowitz and Giroux, 1985). The empowerment potential of PAR is said to “leave people with tools for social change” (Smith et al., 2010, p. 1117) as they engage in “the process of acting upon the conditions [they gace] in order to change them” (p. 33).

 

The aim of this study was to examine if engagement in and with PAR supported the learning structure of a Mentoring Community of Practice (M-CoP) so that participants could overcome resistance to their engagement with school placement and if so, how (Weber 1978, p. 53 cited in Haugaard and Cooke, 2010). Secondly, there was a desire to consider if participants could cascade their learning to colleagues, thus promoting ‘second order change’ and if so, how (Haugaard and Cooke, 2010).

Method

This research was conducted within a qualitative paradigm (Thomas et al., 2005). 12 mentors from 11 schools came together to form an M-CoP. There is little known about how professional learning might be structured in CoPs (MacPhail et al., 2014). It is proposed that the PAR strategy can provide structure to learning through engagement with PAR processes and activities i.e. exploring problems, solving problems, managing conflict, managing change etc (Chevalier and Buckles, 2013). Participants attended four workshops in order to develop their craft as mentors. A dialogic approach was used in order to make sharing of context easier (Labone and Long, 2016). They cyclically shared their evolving hopes and targets and updated one another about their sucesses and triumphs over adversity (Giroux, 1997; Lalik and Oliver, 2005). In doing so, participants were prompted to consider alternative possibilities (Giroux, 1997; Lalik and Oliver, 2005). Participants also cyclically disussed their “shared pains” and “concrete struggles” through the disclosing of their fears and the barriers they were facing back at school (Sobottka, 2013, p. 135). They were supported to cyclically engage in and with "observation, reflection, and action” (Stringer, 1996, p. 17). They then set targets to support the application of their learning and indeed to overcome barriers they were facing. Multiple methods were used to ensure triangulation (Greene et al., 1989). The following data collection tools were engaged with: a ‘Mentoring Community of Practice Questionnaire’ with ‘stimulus recall entries’ to consider if change was occuring (Meyer, 2002) and pre-workshop questions in order to reflect on their position prior to delving into a topic of interest. Workshops were recorded and observed and all artefacts generated from the PAR activities were photographed. They completed a ‘Learning Journey’ plan, setting targets and reflected upon their progress / or lack thereof in a ‘Learning Journal’. Finally, participants engaged in focus groups which had both ‘respondent validation’ and further data collection foci (Silverman, 2006). Data analysis was undertaken across the different datasets using the ‘inductive-deductive’ approach (Mouly, 1978) to facilitate ‘constant comparison’ of categories and codes (Glaser and Strauss, 1967). Codes were checked for ‘inter-rater reliability’ by external researchers (Jones et al., 1997), forcing the researcher to explicate their assumptions and understandings by placing it under the spotlight for critique (Darlington and Scott, 2002). Ethics was granted by the University of Birmingham Ethics Committee.

Expected Outcomes

Participants identified that through their engagement in and with the M-CoP they were impressed by each others’ successes and triumphs and felt that in sharing with one another, it made them want to try and enact more change. They also gathered some effective solutions for overcoming barriers they were facing. In doing so, participants reported to feeling more empowered to enact change as an individual but also to facilitate change within their schools. Through their sustained engagement in the topic and their enhanced knowledge base, participants reported to having “a personal sense of efficacy and control” which they felt gave them the “power to” be influential (Neal, 2014, p. 395) i.e. share resources, offer suggestions, make demands about engagement with their student teacher etc. In some cases, they “gained actual control over desired resources” (Neal, 2014, p. 395). They expressed how they had more “power over” decisions i.e. who in their department would be allocated a student teacher. Some gained power over access to and control of the information coming from Universities. Acting as a “quaterback” for the M-CoP’s change effort in their schools (Erickson, Galloway, and Cytron, 2012 cited in Lawlor, 2015, p. 5), they identified many strategies, which they employed, including but not limited to: careful stakeholder analysis; getting management on board; knowing the right action for the right time for the right person; aligning needs and agendas and using a careful sales-pitch; accepting ‘good enough’ progress and understanding that change is slow, complex and dynamic. Ultimately, participants noted that it was their engagement in the PAR M-CoP that empowered them to sustain their commitment in the face of resistance (Sobottka, 2013).

References

Anderson, V., McKenzie, M., Allan, S., Hill, T., McLean, S., Kayira, J., Knorr, M., Stone, J., Murphy, J., Butcher, K., 2015. Participatory action research as pedagogy: investigating social and ecological justice learning within a teacher education program. Teach. Educ. 26, ASTI, 2015. ASTI members reject latest Junior Cycle proposals. ASTI, 2014. ASTI Submission to the Teaching Council on the Continuum of teacher education. Borzillo, S., Kaminska-Labbe, R., 2011. Unravelling the dynamics of knowledge creation in communities of practice though complexity theory lenses. Knowl. Manag. Res. Pract. 9, 353–366. Chevalier, J.M., Buckles, D.J., 2013. Participatory Action Research: Theory and Methods for Engaged Inquiry. Routledge, London. Coolahan, J., 2003. Attracting, Developing & Retaining Effective Teachers: Country Background Report for Ireland. Cross, S., 1996. Roots & Wings: Mentoring. IETI 35, 224–230. Haugaard, M., Cooke, M., 2010. Power and critical theory. J. Power 3, 1–5. Hogan, P., Brosnan, A., De Róiste, B., MacAlister, A., Malone, A., Quirke-Bolt, N., Smith, G., 2007. Learning Anew: Final Report of the Research & Development Project. Teaching & Learning for the 21st Century, 2003-07. NUI Maynooth, Maynooth. Labone, E., Long, J., n.d. Features of effective professional learning: a case study of the implementation of a system-based professional learning model. Prof. Dev. Educ. 42, 54–77. Lawlor, J.A., 2015. Social Networks in Community Change Efforts. A Thesis Submitted to Michigan State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements. Mulcahy, C., McSharry, M., 2012. The Changing Face of Teacher Education in Ireland: A major overhaul or a cosmetic review? Educ. Res. EJournal 1, 91–103. Neal, J.W., 2014. Exploring Empowerment in Settings: Mapping Distributions of Network Power. Am J. Community Psychol. 53, 394–406. Ó’Ruairc, T., 2014. Opening remarks to School Placement Seminar. Ruechakul, P., Erawan, P., Siwarom, M., 2015. Empowering Communities in Educational Management: Participatory Action Research. Int. Educ. Stud. 8, 65–78. Smith, L., Rosenzweig, L., Schmidt, M., 2010. Best Practices in the Reporting of Participatory Action Research: Embracing Both the Forest and the Trees. Couns. Psychol. 38, 1115– 1138. Sobottka, E.A., 2013. Participation and Recognition in Social Research. Int. J. Action Res. 9, 124–146. Sugrue, C., Solbrekke, T.D., 2017. Policy rhetorics and resource neutral reforms in higher education: their impact and implications? Studies in Higher Education. 42, 130–148. Teaching Council, 2013. Guidelines on School Placement. Teaching Council, 2010. Draft Policy on the Continuum of Teacher Education.

Author Information

Eimear Holland (presenting / submitting)
Dublin City University
Dublin City University
Dublin
University of Birmingham

Update Modus of this Database

The current conference programme can be browsed in the conference management system (conftool) and, closer to the conference, in the conference app.
This database will be updated with the conference data after ECER. 

Search the ECER Programme

  • Search for keywords and phrases in "Text Search"
  • Restrict in which part of the abstracts to search in "Where to search"
  • Search for authors and in the respective field.
  • For planning your conference attendance, please use the conference app, which will be issued some weeks before the conference and the conference agenda provided in conftool.
  • If you are a session chair, best look up your chairing duties in the conference system (Conftool) or the app.