Suggestions for Writing the
Action Research Report
Allan Feldman and Tarin Weiss
There are five
structural elements for an action research report. Although these elements will be described in
a particular order, they need not be that way in your report. In fact, they do not even need to be
separated from one another.
The context
The first element of
the action research report is a description of the context within which the
action research tool place. Depending on
the project that you do, the locus of the context can be your classroom, your
school, or your school district. It is
possible that the context of the project includes aspects of more than one of
these. It is important to remember that
the physical description of the setting is important, but that there are other
aspects that are important depending on the project. For example, if your project focuses on
working with parents or students, a description of these populations should be
included. If the project relates to an
entire district, salient features of the geographical and political area, as
well as important features of the schools are part of the relevant context.
Statement and Origin
of your Research Focus
The statement of your
research focus should answer one or more of the following questions:
¢ What did you investigate?
¢ What have you accomplished or attempted to accomplish in
this study?
¢ What have been your goals?
This element of the
report should also address the way in which your starting point developed. This is
¢ How did the idea originate?
¢How and why did it change through the year?
¢What impact did your research notebook group have on the
development of your starting point?
In addition, this
section should include what you learned from reading the research literature
that informed your study.
Methods
This element of the
report focuses on the way in which you investigated your practices situation.
¢Describe what you did and why.
¢ What sort of data did you collect?
¢How did you collect the date?
¢What successes or difficulties did you have in carrying out
this action research?
The Findings
The fourth element of
the report states what it was that you accomplished and/or found out. Remember that all action research projects
involve actions so therefore there are effects of those actions. And, every action research project results in
the teacher coming to a new understanding of his or her own
educational situation. Therefore, each
report should contain some description of what it was that you learned. Make sure to include any events,
circumstances or data that contradict what you had hoped to do or find out.
Implications
Although this element
is labeled implications, it is not
necessary that each project have fare reaching effects. These implications could be a statement of
how participation in this research has affected the ways in which you look at
your teaching, your students, or your school.
In other words, do you see the educational world differently now, and how will that affect what it is that you will do
next?
Finally, include a
paragraph describing the next step of this research. Is it complete? Is there another scenario you wish to
research? Explain how you would continue
action research following up on this study or developing a new idea. Consider possible supports (without an action
research course) and impediments to your efforts.
Overall, this
structure is not dissimilar to what you may be familiar with – the standard
research report. There is a general
introduction that places the research within the field, a statement of the
problem or hypothesis, the method used, findings of the research, and finally,
implications. But, it can be
significantly different because you may feel free to write in the first person
and to use a narrative style – to tell a validated story. You may also feel free to write in the formal
style of scientific research. The choice
is yours.
[Based in part on
Altrichter, Posch and Somekh, 1993]
Action Research Reading List, Fall 2000
Allan Feldman
In Course Reader #1
Calhoun, E. (1994).
Action research: Three approaches. Educational leadership,
October, 62-65. Calhoun, E. (1994). How to use
action research in the self-renewing school.
Chapter 5. Phase 2: Collecting data (pp. 50-70)
Chapter 6. Phase 3: Organizing data (pp. 71-79)
Carr,
W. and Kemmis, S. (1988). Becoming critical: Education,
knowledge and action research.
Chapter
5: A critical approach to theory and practice, 129-154.
Cochran-Smith, M. and Lytle, S. (1993). Inside/Outside: Teacher research and knowledge. NY:
Teachers College Press.
Chapter
1: Research on teaching and teacher research: The issues that divide, 5-22.
Chapter
2: Learning from teacher research: A working typology, 23-40.
Eisner,
E. (1981). On the differences between scientific and artistic
approaches to qualitative research. Educational
researcher, 10(4), 5-9.
Elliott,
J. (1991). Action research for educational change.
Chapters
1 & 2, pp. 3-42
Hollingworth, S. (1994). Teacher research and urban literacy: Lessons and
conversations in a feminist key. NY: Teachers College Press.
Chapter
1: Sustained conversation, 3-16.
Chapter
2: Rewriting the conversation and curriculum of literacy education, 17-33
Holly, M. (1989).
Reflective writing and the spirit of inquiry.
Lather, P. (1986).
Research as praxis. Harvard
educational review, 56(3), 257-277.
Nofke, S. (1997).
Professional, personal, and political dimensions of action
research. Review of research in education, 22, 305-343.
Phillips,
D. (1987). Validity in qualitative research: Why the worry about warrant will
not wane. Education and urban society, 20(1), 9-24.
Rearick, M. and Feldman, A. (1999) Orientations, Purposes,
and Reflection: A Framework for Understanding Action Research. Teaching and teacher education.
15, 333-349.
Schon,
D. (1983). The reflective practitioner: How professionals think in action.
Chapter
2, pp. 21-69.
Schwab,
J. (1978). The practical: A language for curriculum. In I.
Westbury and N. Wlkof (Eds.), Science, curriculum, and liberal education,
287-321.
Stenhouse,
L. (1981). What counts as research? British journal of education studies, 29(2),
103-114.
Tremmel,
R. (1993). Zen and the art of reflective practice in teacher
education. Harvard educational review, 63(4),
437-458.
In Course Reader #2
Feldman,
A. (1994). Erzberger’s dilemma: Validity in action research and science
teachers’ need to know. Xerox.
Feldman,
A. (1996). Enhancing the practice of physics teachers:
Mechanisms for the generation and sharing the knowledge and understanding in
collaborative action research. Xerox.
Feldman,
A. (1997a). The Role of Conversation in Collaborative Action
Research. Xerox.
Feldman,
A. (1997b). Implementing and assessing
the power of conversation in the teaching of action research. Xerox.
Action
research project report rubric
context Can
an informed reader make sense of the projects?
Statement
and origin of the problem Is
the focus of the project clear?
Is
the problem tied to the researcher’s practice?
Does
the researcher refer to the research literature that informs the project?
Methodology Does
the paper contain a description of what happened?
Are
data collection methods described?
Is
data presented?
Is
data analyzed?
Findings What
did the research learn?
Implications How
did the project change the way in which the researcher thinks about his or her
educational situation?
Self-critical Does
the researcher provide support for his/her knowledge claims?
Did
the researcher critique his/her own work?
An Introduction to Action Research
I
feel that we need to make a greater effort to involve teacher sin Action Research. Teachers already know much about teaching—more
than many of us do. But many are waiting
to be invited to participate in research studies in which they examine students’
preconceptions, or effective teaching strategies. It is through joint research studies that
instruction in the schools will improve, and we need to make a great effort in
this regard.
Dorothy Gabel
Presidential Address
National Association for Research in Science Teaching
(NARST)
Action
Research (AR) represents a growing field of educational research whose chief
identifying characteristic is the recognition of the pragmatic requirements of
educational practitioners for organized reflective inquiry into classroom instruction. AR is a process designed to empower all
participants in the educational process (students, instructors and other
parties) with the means to improve the practices conducted within the
educational experience (Hopkins, 1993).
All participants were knowing, active members of the research process.
Action
research has been described as an informal, qualitative, formative, subjective,
interpretive and experiential model of inquiry in which all individuals
involved in the study are knowing and contributing
participants (
Some
of the most widely accepted definitions of Action Research include following:
[Action
Research] …aims to contribute both to the practical concerns of people in an
immediate problematic situation and to the goals of social science by joint
collaboration within a mutually acceptable ethical framework.
-
Rapoport
(cited in
Action
Research is a form of self-reflective enquiry undertaken by participants in
social (including educational) situations in order to improve the rationality
and justice of (a) their own social or educational practices, (b) their
understanding of these practices, and (c) the situations in which the practices
are carried out. It is most rationally
empowering when undertaken by participants collaboratively…sometime sin
cooperation with outsiders.
-
Kemmis (cited
in
[Action
Research] …is the systematic study of attempts to improve educational practice
by groups of participants by means of their own practical actions and by means
of their own reflection upon the effects of those actions.
-
Ebbut (cited
in
The
action research frame work is most appropriate for participants who recognize
the existence of shortcomings in their educational activities and who would
like to adopt some initial stance in regard to the problem, formulate a plan,
carry out an intervention, evaluate the outcomes and develop further strategies
in an iterative fashion (
Action Research Design
The
essentials of action research design are considered by Elliott (in
· Initially an exploratory
stance is adopted, where an understanding of a problem is developed and plans
are made for some form of interventionary strategy. (The Reconnaissance & General Plan)
· Then the intervetion
is carried out. (The Action in Action
Research)
· During and around the
time of the intervention, pertinent observations are collected in various
forms. (Monitoring the implementation by Observation.)
· The new interventional
strategies are carried out, and the cyclic process repeats, continuing until a
sufficient understanding of (or implement able solution for) the problem is
achieved (Reflection and Revision).
The
protocol is iterative or cyclical in nature and is intended to foster deeper
understanding of a given situation, starting with conceptualizing and particularizing
the problem and moving through several interventions and evaluations. A representation of an AR protocol by Kemmis
is provided in Figure 1.
Figure
1 clearly displays the iterative nature of AR along with the major steps of
planning, action, observation and reflection before revising the plan. This may be thought of as similar in nature
to the numerical computing technique known as successive approximation – the idea
is to close in upon a final goal or outcome by repeated iterations.
Later
protocols reflect changes in the goal as determined via experience during the
reflections of earlier iterations of AR. For instance, Figure 2 reflects the
evolution of the general idea or main topic of interest throughout the process.
ID Initial
Idea
Reconnaissance
General Plan
Action Steps 1
Action Steps 2 Implement
Action Steps 3 Action Steps 1
Monitor
Implementation
and Effects
Reconnaissance Revise General Idea
CYCLE
1
Amended
Plan
Action Steps 1
Action Steps 2 Implement Next
Action Steps 3 Action Steps