Session Information
01 SES 03 A, Action Research (Part 2)
Paper Session continued from 01 SES 02 A
Contribution
In education fields action research can be undertaken for a range of purposes. Kemmis, McTaggart and Nixon (2014) argue that the purpose of critical participatory action research is to “change social practices” (p.2). Carr and Kemmis (1986) argue that improvement and involvement are the two key aims for action research (p.165). Hardy and Rönnerman (2011) identify action research as a valuable approach to professional learning that supports collaboration, an awareness of the complexity of educator learning, and a focus on site-based practices and arrangements.
For the action research projects that we discuss in this presentation, two of the presenters undertook the role of “academic action researcher” (Platteel et al. 2010, 432). As Olin et al (2016) note, “These practices are characterised by being both researchers and, at the same time, facilitators of professional development who aim to support and empower teacher participants” (p. 424). It is this professional development aspect, and how action research can support that development, that is the focus of this paper.
This paper considers two case studies of action research projects: one with Swedish principals; and the other with Australian Vocational Education and Training (VET) teachers of beauty therapy. The Swedish principals’ action research project was part of a higher education course (7,5 credits) and the AR project was undertaken over 14 months. The overall aim of the course was to support a critical approach to principals’ professional practice. The Australian VET teachers project was undertaken with four Beauty Therapy teachers, with a focus on middle-leaders supporting the development of VET pedagogy. The participants in the action research projects were not alone in their learning. Academic facilitators are also learners during these projects (Olin & Pörn, 2021; Olin, Karlberg-Granlund, & Furu; 2016). By focusing on two quite different groups of educators (eg principals and teachers; Sweden and Australia), and different arrangements for the action research projects (one part of a formal qualification and one developed together with the participants as part of a research project to develop VET pedagogy) we hope to identify broader arrangements that enabled and constrained the professional learning of educators through undertaking action research projects.
The research questions for this paper draw on both projects, and the experiences of the academic facilitators. They are:
- What did action research team members report that they learnt as a result of undertaking action research projects?
- What enabled and constrained that learning?
- What did academic facilitators learn through their involvement in the action research projects?
- What enabled and constrained that learning?
These research questions will be considered through the lens of the theory of practice architectures. With a site-based focus on practices, the theory of practice architectures holds that practices are made up of sayings, doings and relatings that ‘hang together’ in a project (Kemmis et al. 2014). These sayings, doings and relatings are prefigured (but not predetermined) by practice architectures present or brought into the site. Sayings are prefigured by the cultural-discursive arrangements in a site, doings are prefigured by the material-economic arrangements in a site; and relatings are prefigured by the social-political arrangements in a site (Kemmis et al. 2014).
Method
This paper draws on two case studies of action research projects: one undertaken in Sweden with school principals, and the other undertaken in Australia by vocational education and training teachers of beauty therapy. Case 1 – Swedish principals and school leader education The data in this case consist of assignments produced for a university course for school principals, in combination with observations carried out by one of the article's authors who was also one of the educators in the course. This course was undertaken over 14 months. The principals represented all school sectors (public and private) and school forms (from preschool to VET). The course was designed as action research where participating principals formed research teams based on common issues and dilemmas emerging in their professional leading practices. The course was undertaken in the form of three physical residentials of 2 days each, and two digital meetings (due to Covid). Additionally, each research team met digitally: sometimes by themselves, and sometimes inviting the educator. Case 2 – Australian teachers of Beauty Therapy The Australian case study involved an action research team of four Vocational Education and Training (VET) teachers of Beauty Therapy. They developed their project with the framework of pedagogical development, and the basic questions: what are the issues we would like to work on in relation to our teaching practice? What problems are we encountering? With the ongoing support of the academic facilitator the AR team undertook three cycles of action research over a period of nine months. Data collection included action research team meetings via zoom, recorded and transcribed, as well as one team meeting face-to-face; photos of the worksite; emails; documents provided by the team (surveys, survey outcomes, assessment tasks, reflections on their learning and the outcomes); field notes and reflections by the academic facilitators; and interviews with participants. The data analysis related to the research questions addressed in this presentation will be undertaken in two stages. Thematic analysis related to the research questions (Braun and Clarke, 2006) will form the first layer of analysis. A further layer of analysis will involve the use of the theory of practice architectures to identify practice architectures that enable and constrain professional learning through action research.
Expected Outcomes
Expected outcomes relate to the research questions • What action research team members reported that they learnt as a result of undertaking action research projects? • What enabled and constrained that learning? • What academic facilitators learnt through their involvement in the action research projects? • What enabled and constrained that learning? Initial findings suggest that specific areas of learning varied considerably between the two groups. The broader arrangements that enabled and constrained that learning have more areas of convergence, with power, trust and agency important factors.
References
Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2021). Thematic Analysis: A practical guide to understanding and doing. Sage. Forssten Seiser, A. (2021). When the demand for educational research meets practice – A Swedish example. Research in Educational Administration & Leadership, 6(2), 348-376. DOI: 10.30828/real/2021.2.1 Forssten Seiser, Anette. (2020) Exploring enhanced pedagogical leadership: An action research study involving Swedish principals. Educational action research (28 (5) pp 791-806. Forssten Seiser, A., & Portfelt, I. (2022). Critical aspects to consider when establishing collaboration between school leaders and researchers: two cases from Sweden. Educational action research, 1-16. Francisco, S., Forssten Seiser, A., & Grice, C. (2021). Professional learning that enables the development of critical praxis. Professional Development in Education, 1-15. doi:10.1080/19415257.2021.1879228 Hardy, I., & Rönnerman, K. (2011). The value and valuing of continuing professional development: current dilemmas, future directions and the case for action research. Cambridge Journal of Education, 41(4), 461-472. doi:10.1080/0305764X.2011.625004 Jerdborg, S. (2022) Learning principalship: Becoming a principal in a Swedish context [Doctoral thesis]. University of Gothenburg. https://hdl.handle.net/2077/70566 Kaukko, M. Wilkinson, J. and Langelotz, L. (2020) Research that facilitates praxis and praxis development. In K. Mahon, C. Edwards-Groves, S. Francisco, M. Kaukko, Kemmis, S. & K. Petri. Pedagogy education and praxis in critical times. Springer. Kemmis, S. (2022). Transforming practices: Changing the world with the theory of practice architectures. Singapore: Springer. Kemmis, S., Edwards-Groves, C. Lloyd, A. Grootenboer, P. Hardy, I. and Wilkinson, J. (2017) Learning as being 'stirred in' to practices. In Practice theory perspectives on pedagogy and education: Praxis, diversity and contestation, edited by P. Grootenboer, C. Edwards-Groves and Sarojni Choy, 45-65. Singapore: Springer. Kemmis, S., J. Wilkinson, C. Edwards-Groves, I. Hardy, P. Grootenboer, and L. Bristol. (2014). Changing practices, changing education. Singapore: Springer. Mahon, K. Kemmis, S. Francisco, S. & Lloyd A.M. (2017) Introduction: Practice Theory and the Theory of Practice Architectures, In K. Mahon, S. Francisco, & S. Kemmis (Eds.), Exploring education and professional practice: Through the lens of practice architectures. Springer. Olin, A., Karlberg-Granlund, G., & Furu, E. M. (2016). Facilitating democratic professional development: exploring the double role of being an academic action researcher. Educational Action Research, 24(3), 424-441. doi:10.1080/09650792.2016.1197141 Olin, A., & Pörn, M. (2021). Teachers’ professional transformation in teacher-researcher collaborative didactic development projects in Sweden and Finland. Educational Action Research, 1-18. Platteel, T. Hulshof, H. Ponte, P. van Driel, J. & Verloop, N. (2010) Forming a collaborative Action Research Partnership. Educational Action Research 18 (4): 429–451.
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 you may want to use the conference app, which will be issued some weeks before the conference
- If you are a session chair, best look up your chairing duties in the conference system (Conftool) or the app.