Session Information
99 ERC SES 04 D, Interactive Poster Session
Poster Session
Contribution
The integration of action research into the teacher appraisal system in Kazakhstan emphasizes the pivotal roles of teachers as “teacher-researchers” and “master teachers”. In 2019, the initiation of the SHARE (School Hub for action Research in Education) by the Mayor of Astana city provided teachers from 22 Astana schools with opportunities to actively engage in action research. The collaborative effort involved coordination with Professor Colleen McLaughlin, Kate Evans, and Dr Nazipa Ayubayeva. The Astana Department of Education Center for Education Modernization played a key role in coordinating and overseeing the project.
The main aim of this initiative is to engage teachers in action research in school settings. Embracing the perspectives by Stenhouse and Elliott (1983, 1991) the initiative recognizes teachers as knowledge generators, acquiring insights through self-directed research in collaboration with critical friends within the school community. Thus, teachers together with students are the primary audience for teachers engaged in action research. The process requires teachers to approach their work with honesty, open-mindedness, and a critical mindset. This involves a commitment to openly examining their own practices as well as those of their colleagues. The overarching goal in mind is to enhance teaching and learning for students through a continuous and reflective improvement process. Emphasizing teachers as initiators in this process is crucial for academic and professional growth. British educators Stenhouse (1981, 1983, 1988) and Rudduck (1988) stress daily research for teachers, stating curriculum study is their prerogative. Implementing change involves learning processes, challenging beliefs, and attitudes (Altrichter, 2005). Mills (2012) emphasizes teachers as decision-makers in research, creating conditions for their investigations. Mills' hypothesis asserts that if teachers, students, and administrators don't think independently about their actions, schools won't improve.
Hence, for the community of action researchers to sustain, it requires a recognition that the research teachers can thrive in an intellectually secure environment conducive to their work within the research domain (Samaras, 1950). The international literature highlights the importance of creating equitable conditions for teachers to voluntarily participate in action research. This involves clearly outlining intentions at the outset and maintaining transparency throughout the process, thereby enhancing the likelihood of realizing anticipated outcomes. Furthermore, it emphasizes the promotion of a teacher-driven process, empowering educators to take an active and leading role in shaping the trajectory of action research initiatives.
In the academic year 2022-2023, 22 SHARE schools conducted action research with a focus on student engagement in classroom learning. The action research was organized around the four key action research concepts: exploring how the action research methodology help teacher to learn about their own practices, investigating whether teachers engaged in action research foster teacher leadership qualities fostered, examining if there are observable changes in teaching and learning resulting from teachers’ engagement in action research, and finally, examining whether conducive conditions were established to facilitate active engagement in action research in participating schools.
Our team, representing three school-gymnasiums #74, #75, and #91, was assigned to explore conditions established for conducting action research on student engagement in classroom learning during the 2022-2023 academic year. Hence, the aim of this small-scale research is to provide insights into the conditions created by schools, teachers and community for the successful implementation of action research in the context.
Method
In this study two primary sources of information were utilized: a literature review aimed at understanding the conditions necessary for individual teachers, groups of teachers, school communities, and collaborations with external experts to engage in action research; and a survey data collected within SHARE settings. For the literature review, a systematic approach was employed in English, Kazakh and Russian languages and guided by main key words for search. Google Scholar served as the primary source for literature search due to the restricted access to subscription -based databases in the schools. Survey data were collected via Google Forms, a decision guided by considerations such as time constraints and need to reach a substantial number of respondents. A questionnaire comprising thirteen questions, was collaboratively designed with three other teams researching SHARE domains. General information about the respondents, including their role in the student engagement project and in the SHARE project, was gathered for analysis purposes. Among the thirteen questions, two were specifically targeted teachers’ perception of the conditions created in their schools for engagement in action research. The survey was conducted anonymously. This approach aimed to encourage a greater willingness to share perceptions without fear of judgment or misunderstanding, ultimately seeking more accurate and truthful insights into the participants' perspectives. However, recognizing the potential limitations posed by narrow survey questions fully capturing the thoughts of participants about the concept under study, we intend to address this issue by complementing the data with one-to-one interviews and focus group meetings in the future. This will allow us to overcome potential limitations in the study design and ensure a more comprehensive exploration of participants’ perspective.
Expected Outcomes
Preliminary findings derived from the survey data, validated with 171 responses out of 228, indicate that SHARE teachers in the student engagement in classroom learning project acquired some degree of autonomy to establish necessary conditions to engage with the action research in their own school setting and beyond. Among the key findings: 80% of teacher-participants agreed that they have an opportunity to select their own critical friend. However, it should be noted that the school-based practice related to the lesson observation is very structured and is mandated by the order of the school principal who and when they attend the lesson. More than 90% of teachers reported having access to school-based trainings on action research conducted by the SHARE core team, whereas only little more than 50% reported having an opportunity to participate in trainings conducted by the Cambridge experts. Despite this, over 95% reported that they had an opportunity to participate in the SHARE mini conferences conducted with the participation of the Cambridge experts. Only 50% teacher-participants either fully or partially agreed that they have an opportunity to construct a timetable that accommodates time for discussion and reflections for all involved. The prevalent narrative of “lack of time” is commonly heard in schools. Addressing this challenge requires attention from school administration and decision makers at the level of subject departments. The examination of existing literature on the conditions for teachers' participation in action research revealed various ways of addressing the challenges teachers encounter. In conclusion, this small-scale study conducted by practitioners contributes to the discourse surrounding the importance of ensuring equitable conditions for voluntary teacher participation in action research, which in turn should contribute to the broader goal of empowering teachers as both researchers and leaders, ultimately enhancing teaching and learning experiences for all students.
References
Altrichter, H. (2005). Curriculum implementation–limiting and facilitating factors. Making it relevant: Context based learning of science, pp. 35-62. Germany. Elliott, J. (1993). Reconstructing Teacher Education. Teacher Development. London and New York: Routledge. Gay, L.R., Mills, Geoffrey E., Airasian, P. (2012). Educational research : competencies for analysis and applications (10th ed.). USA: Pearson Education, Inc. Rudduck, J. (1988). Changing the world of the classroom by understanding it: a review of some aspects of the work of Lawrence Stenhouse. Journal of Curriculum and Supervision, Vol,4. No 1, 30-42. Samaras, Anastasia P. (1950). Self-study teacher research: improving your practice through collaborative inquiry. US: SAGE Publications, Inc. Stenhouse, L. (1981). Educational Procedures and Attitudinal Objectives: a Paradox. Journal of Curriculum Studies, Vol. 13, NO. 4, 329-337. DOI: 10.1080/0022027810130405 Stenhouse, L. (1983). The relevance of practice to theory. Theory Into Practice 22:3, 211-215, DOI: 10.1080/00405848309543063 Stenhouse, L. (1988). Artistry and teaching: the teacher as focus of research and development. Journal of Curriculum and Supervision, Vol,4. No 1, pp. 43-51.
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.