A Practical Guide to Action Research and Teacher Enquiry

Making a Difference in the Early Years

Amanda Ince, Eleanor Kitto

• Publisher: Routledge
• Year: 2019
• Print ISBN: 9781138495166
• eBook ISBN: 9781351024563
• Edition: 1
• Topic: Education
• Subtopic: Education General

This accessible guide will be an invaluable resource for early years practitioners looking to make a positive difference in their settings by using action research or teacher enquiry. Guiding readers through the practical steps, issues, and potentials of conducting research in a variety of early childhood settings, the book will increase practitioners' confidence, enabling them to bridge the gap between recognising room for improvements and instigating necessary changes.

Divided into easy-to-follow sections, A Practical Guide to Action Research and Teacher Enquiry: Making a Difference in the Early Years offers clear definitions and explanations of action research along with explanations of how it can be applied in early years settings to effectively and efficiently improve outcomes for children. Chapters outline a clear rationale for engaging in action research, highlight purposes and potentials of various approaches, and provide a helpful step-by-step discussion of the different stages of enquiry. Ten examples of practice are used to clearly illustrate the action research cycle in a variety of settings, and in relation to a range of topics and ages, thereby providing readers with a wealth of tried-and-tested ideas for application in their own settings and projects. These are supported by a range of downloadable resources which can be used as tools to support the planning, reflecting, and evaluation of practitioners' research activities.

Informative, inspiring, and highly relevant to practice, A Practical Guide to Action Research and Teacher Enquiry will support and scaffold the research activities of early years practitioners, managers, and students.

Part one

Action research: Theory and practice

Introduction

Action research is a term frequently used within the field of education and is a recognised approach for carrying out research. One glossary characterises it as “action research or practitioner research attempts to instigate change in the form of improved practice, policy and culture within an institution. Action research is a collaborative and participatory research approach” (Roberts-Holmes, 2018:xvii). Action research offers a powerful tool in the early-years practitioners' professional repertoire, as it provides a structured approach to exploring, and developing, practice. As outlined by Somekh (1995:340) “action research methodology bridges the divide between research and practice”. It provides a framework for practitioners to investigate aspects of practice systematically, make adaptations, and consider the impact of their revisions. Understanding the what, why, and how of action research can empower individuals and settings, potentially raising quality, improving outcomes for children, and acting as a motivator for staff.

This chapter provides the theoretical rationale for engaging in action research within the Early Years Foundation Stage (EYFS). It explains what we mean by action research and how it emerged and came to be used within educational contexts. The chapter then considers some of the many reasons that practitioners choose to engage in action research and presents a discussion on some of the benefits specifically associated with the action research process for professional, personal, and institutional development within the EYFS.

What is action research?

Action research has many definitions throughout a vast literature. It is explained by Manion and Cohen (1994:186) as a “small-scale intervention in the functioning of the real world and the close examination of the effects of such intervention”. This definition is particularly useful for considering the process within the EYFS, as it emphasises the focus on making a change and investigating the consequences of that change, within the real, everyday life of a setting. However, the centrality of the practitioner and the importance of self-reflection within the process are less evident within the above definition. McNiff (2002:15) emphasises that “action research is enquiry by the self, into the self…[it] involves learning in and through action and reflection”. The practitioner's own learning and consideration of the interconnection between the practitioner and practice when implementing and evaluating change are all essential features of the approach discussed within this text. As a starting point for thinking about the action research process, these are considered core components. However, in order to position these within the broader context, it is useful to consider the history of action research and some of the contentions which contribute to the challenge of establishing a concise definition.

How did action research develop?

Action research, as a term and a concept, is widely cited as having been first developed by Kurt Lewin (1890–1947) in the 1940s. However, Masters (1995) suggests that its origins lay much earlier in the 20th century, and, as the process has continued to develop, there is no singular definition which can be attributed to a particular person at a particular point in time. This sentiment is echoed by Dickens and Watkins (2006:185), who refer to action research as an “umbrella term for a shower of activities intended to foster change”. Whilst not wishing to dismiss these views, it is the work of Lewin and subsequent proponents of his conception of action research that forms the central tenets of the approach advocated within this text. It is, therefore, a logical starting point to provide a brief synopsis of the emergence of Lewin's view and the ensuing development of action research within education.

In looking to address sociological challenges specifically concerned with group relations Lewin (1946) noted the need to integrate aspects of the social sciences, psychology, sociology, and social anthropology, in order to better understand, and effect change in, social situations. He asserted that the complexity of social activity required that such changes were most effectively achieved through exploration and action carried out by those social agents most closely concerned with the practices. In contrast to more detached models of research and leadership, Lewin proposed a participatory, collaborative, and democratic approach to exploring and influencing social action.

The research needed for social practice can best be characterized as research for social management or social engineering. It is a type of action-research, a comparative research on the condition and effects of various forms of social action, and research leading to social action. Research that produces nothing but books will not suffice.

(Lewin, 1946:35)

Lewin problematised that such research, however, would require a set of standards by which to evaluate and measure progress. He presented a cyclical model of “planning, executing, and reconnaissance” applied systematically, in order to monitor and direct focus (Lewin, 1946:38). It is the recurrent cycles, and the role of participants in investigating and directing social action, that made the essence of action research particularly appealing to educational contexts. Action research in these different contexts, from nursery to post-compulsory education settings, reflects the ways in which Lewin's model has been adapted and developed, subsequently leading to a wide variety in form and structure. Lewin's contention that research should be structured, and more than the production of books, has contributed to the current discussion about the role of close-to-practice research and the importance of practitioner agency (Wyse et al., 2018).

The development and application of action research in education

The emergence of action research as a process, according to Adelman (1993), coincided with a growing interest in democratic educational reform. This was promoted by John Dewey (1859–1952), who considered the potential of action research as a tool for actualising practice, built from his fundamental belief in the power of democracy in education at all levels, including practitioners.

The use of action research in education was further popularised by Corey (1954), outlining the specific relevance of the approach for enabling teachers and others to improve their own practices.

They accumulate evidence to define their problems more sharply. They draw upon all of the experience available to them as a source for action hypotheses that give promise of enabling them to ameliorate or eliminate the practical difficulties of their day by day work. They test out these promising procedures on the job and again accumulate the best evidence they can of their effectiveness.

(Corey, 1954:375)

Corey's statement positions practitioners as central to pedagogic decision-making and identifies their importance in understanding the contextual issues that might be suitable research foci.

The evolution of action research as a process or as an overarching term for a divergent set of methodological or epistemological perspectives (Peters & Robinson, 1984; McNiff, 2013; McAteer, 2014) continued in different academic disciplines and different social spheres. Within UK education, action research gained momentum and validity. This was through the works of Lawrence Stenhouse, who emphasised the role of practitioners in schools as central to the development of educational research (Stenhouse, 1981), and John Elliott, who propagated the development of “a reflective culture in which teaching strategies are perceived as potentially problematic and therefore objects of reflective deliberation in particular contexts” (Elliott, 1991:111). With the impetus to “improve the quality of education and give teachers an enhanced role in shaping educational policy and school reform” John Elliott founded the Classroom Action Research Network in 1976 (later to become the Collaborative Action Research Network, or CARN). This was intended to facilitate connection between teacher researchers and promote “action and research as integrated activities, in which educational reform is informed by research knowledge generated in local contexts by teachers and with teachers, not on teachers” (Somekh, 2010:105).

The central features of action research in contemporary educational settings remain those of cycles of exploratory, self-reflective interrogation of contextually embedded practices, undertaken by practitioners for practitioners. This enables action research to be applied to a very broad range of contexts for a broad range of purposes. However, the flexibility of action research and the breadth of its scope can be viewed both as its strength and its limitation, whilst the key components of self-reflective, practitioner-directed exploration can be viewed as the emancipatory underpinning of the action research process for educational reform. This is in contrast to other approaches to educational research. It is also the personalised, individual principle of the approach which, arguably, inhibits the development of a “cumulative body of knowledge” that might contribute to the broader view of evidence-based practice, and, consequently, truly satisfy the vision of the founders of action research (Hargreaves, 2007a:51). In addition to the challenge of how individual endeavours can contribute to a broader dialogue about practice, the popularity of action research has resulted in a vast array of differing definitions and interpretations of what constitutes an appropriate approach. It is our contention that education per se is such a broad and multifarious notion, and that action research is such a flexible tool, that no singular body of knowledge could be amassed which might be sufficiently reciprocally beneficial to practitioner-researchers within education as a broad field. It is for that reason we have attempted to initiate a shared framework specifically relevant for conducting action research within early years settings and provide a forum for sharing accumulated experiences. It is our view that practitioners are the experts and, as such, have much to contribute to a discourse about developing practice, but that this is best facilitated through some aspect of shared process and shared focus. It is for this reason that we have developed specific phases for an action research cycle in the EYFS, as outlined through this book in Part two and exemplified through real life action research projects in Part three. It is not, however, our intention to be so prescriptive that we detract from the original goals of the concept of action research. To this end, the most concise definition of action research, from our perspective, is that offered by Kemmis (2007):

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.

(p. 168)

Why engage in action research in the early years?

Practitioners say: …

“It makes you see things in a different way”.

“It makes you think about practice and organisation”.

One of the founding principles of action research is the development of practice through “democratic participation rather than autocratic coercion” (Adelman, 1993:7). In addition, although not essential, Kemmis (2007:168) suggests that “it is most rationally empowering when undertaken by participants collaboratively”. This egalitarian, collaborative approach to investigating practice and effecting change, is what, in our opinion, makes the action research process so applicable to early years settings. In educational contexts where conflicting priorities are often directing practices, establishing a professional dialogue to explore and develop practices offers a means by which pedagogical decision making can be shared and justified. In a context where, one would hope, all adults have a shared resolve to enhance the short- and long-term futures of the children in their care, constructing collaborative investigations into aspects of practice offers opportunities to expose and unify the perspectives that shape activity. Collaboration, both within and between settings, has potential to further strengthen the dedicated community of early years practitioners. It provides support and challenge, as well as advancing a shared repertoire with which to advocate for the best interests of children, amidst the myriad of outsider perspectives on “good practice”. Put simply, engaging in action research offers personal and professional satisfaction for individuals in addressing an issue within the setting. Working to resolve the issue in order to enhance the outcomes or experience for children resonates with Fullan and Ballew's (2004) “moral purpose” and the desire of many in early years settings “to make a difference”.

What is in it for me?

Practitioners say: …

“It made me really think about what int...

Table of contents

• Cover
• Half Title
• Title
• Copyright
• Contents
• Acknowledgements
• Foreword by Dr. Guy Roberts-Holmes
• Introduction
• Part one: Action research: Theory and practice
• Part two: The phases of action research
• Part three: The projects
• Conclusion
• References
• Appendices
• Index