collaborative action research: teachers’ stages of development and school contexts

This article was downloaded by: [University of Birmingham]On: 07 October 2014, At: 03:19Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House,37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Peabody Journal of EducationPublication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/hpje20

Collaborative action research: Teachers’ stages ofdevelopment and school contextsSharon Nodie Oja a & Gerald J. Pine ba Associate Professor in the Department of Education , The University of New Hampshire ,Durham, New Hampshireb Dean of The School of Education and Human Services , Oakland University , Rochester,MichiganPublished online: 04 Nov 2009.

To cite this article: Sharon Nodie Oja & Gerald J. Pine (1987) Collaborative action research: Teachers’ stages of developmentand school contexts, Peabody Journal of Education, 64:2, 96-115, DOI: 10.1080/01619568709538553

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/01619568709538553

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the “Content”) contained in thepublications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make no representationsor warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Anyopinions and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors, and are not theviews of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content should not be relied upon and should beindependently verified with primary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses,actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever or howsoevercaused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising out of the use of the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematicreproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in anyform to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/hpje20

http://www.tandfonline.com/action/showCitFormats?doi=10.1080/01619568709538553

http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/01619568709538553

http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

Collaborative Action Research:Teachers' Stages of Developmentand School Contexts

Sharon Nodie OjaGerald J. Pine

Introduction

Collaborative action research represents a renaissance within educa-tional research. The idea of such collaborative efforts was articulated anddemonstrated by Corey (1953) and Schaefer (1967), and applied morerecently by Oja (1979,1980), and Pine (1979a, 1979b, 1979c, 1980a, 1980b,1986), as well as several other researchers (Ward & Tikunoff, 1982). Thecurrent collaborative research action study, Action Research on Changein Schools (ARCS), is the third in a series of NIE sponsored researchprojects on collaborative action research. Preceding NIE projects includethe original Interactive Research and Development on Teaching Study(IR and DT), (Tikunoff, Ward, & Griffin, 1979); and the InteractiveResearch and Development on Schooling Study (IR and DS), (Griffin,Lieberman, & Jacullo-Noto, 1983); and in addition to these studies, areplication of the IR and DT study (Huling, 1981).

In the ARCS project it was assumed that collaborative action researchis characterized by several elements:

1. Research problems are mutually defined by teachers and re-searchers.

SHARON NODIE OJA IS an Associate Professor in the Department of Education at The Universityof New Hampshire, Durham, New Hampshire.

GERALD J. PINE is Dean of The School of Education and Human Services at Oakland University,Rochester, Michigan.

The work upon which this manuscript is based was performed pursuant to contractNo. G-81-0040 of the National Institute of Education.

96

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f B

irm

ingh

am]

at 0

3:19

07

Oct

ober

201

4

Collaborative Action...

2. University researchers and teachers collaborate in seeking solu-tions to school-based problems.

3. Research findings are used and modified in solving school prob-lems.

4. Teachers develop research competencies and researchers re-educate themselves in field based research methodologies.

5. Teachers are more able to solve their own problems and renewthemselves professionally.

6. Teachers and researchers co-author reports of findings.

Uniqueness of the ARCS Project

Although previous studies involved both teachers and universityresearchers in collaborative action research teams, the ARCS Project wasunique in its focus on the individual teachers (in a school setting) andtheir stages of development (ego, moral, conceptual, interpersonal) as ameans to gain information and insight to address two questions: (1) towhat extent and in what specific ways does a collaborative researchproject support or influence teachers' personal and professional devel-opment? and (2) to what extent and in what specific ways does acollaborative research project support and influence teachers' ability topropose or initiate change in school practices?

In order to gauge the impact of the project on individual teachers'personal and professional development, the research focused on indi-vidual teachers' stages of development as a framework for:

(1) describing teachers who participated in the project,(2) understanding teachers' perspectives on the goals of the project,(3) understanding teachers' perceptions of their school,(4) understanding the way teachers interact on a research team

(group process),(5) understanding how teachers collaborate on a research project

and(6) understanding teachers' perceptions of the outcomes of the

project.

Several design features were built into the project to study its impacton the school: the research projects conducted by the teams of teacherand university researchers were directed toward addressing a problemwithin a particular school site; all research project team meetings wereconducted at the school-research site; all teachers participating in theresearch project on each team were members of the school-site staff; andthe researcher on each team was also a principal investigator of the study

97

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f B

irm

ingh

am]

at 0

3:19

07

Oct

ober

201

4

PEABODY JOURNAL OF EDUCATIONThe Potential and Practice of Action Research

able to assess the climate of the school, observe the interface betweenthe project and the school, and ask teachers to reflect on the impact ofthe project on the school at various stages of the project. To examine theinfluence of a collaborative research project on teachers' perceptions oftheir ability to conceptualize and propose changes in school practices,teachers were asked to share their views on what they thought theprincipal would do with the findings or how they thought the principalmight use the findings and to consider formulating a set of recommen-dations for school change in their final project report.

In addition to the framework of adult developmental stages, severalother elements distinguished the project from its immediate predeces-sors:

1. Previous studies used pre/post entrance-exit interviews, whilethe ARCS study used a total of five interviews generating pre-during-post data which provided more information on teachers'preconceptions and more opportunities for teachers to reflect onthe school, the project, and themselves as researchers.

2. The ARCS study used a participant observer as opposed to a staffdeveloper on the team. Participant observation documentation ofeach meeting coupled with audio tape transcripts provided thebasis for in-depth analysis of how teachers progressed andworked through the research process.

3. The university researcher on each team was principal investiga-tor of the study and served in the role of researcher and technicalassistant. Thus, the research process was observed firsthand bythe principal investigators familiar with both traditional and col-laborative models of research.

4. All teachers on each team (Michigan and New Hampshire) werefrom the same school, on the same staff, so they shared the samecontext, which made it possible to assess different teachers' per-ceptions of the same school.

5. This study focused concommitantly on the collaborative actionresearch process, the contextual variables of the school and theirimpact on individual teachers and the research process, as wellas the interplay between individual developmental stages andcontextual variables.

In the ARCS Project, university researchers collaborated with teachersfrom two public middle/junior high schools. One team from Michiganconsisted of five teachers from the same middle school, one universityresearcher, and a research assistant who documented meetings. Thesecond team from New Hampshire consisted of four junior high teach-

98

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f B

irm

ingh

am]

at 0

3:19

07

Oct

ober

201

4


ers and one part-time teacher/administrator from the same school, auniversity researcher, and a graduate research assistant/documenter.

The following measures were administered to all teacher participantsin order to assure representation of a variety of developmental stages oneach team:

The Defining Issues Test of Moral Judgment (Rest, 1974)The Washington University Sentence Completion Test of Ego Devel-opment (Loevinger & Wessler, 1970)The Paragraph Completion Test of Conceptual Complexity (Hunt etal., 1973)

While the teachers and researchers carried out their action researchstudies, a variety of data sources was used to record and monitor theprocess of action research in each team. These included: (1) audio record-ings of all team meetings and transcripts of selected meeting tapes;(2) written documentation of all team meetings by participant observer(using Schatzman and Strauss method, 1973); (3) teacher logs; (4) pre-postquestionnaires with participants, other teachers, and administrators; and(5) interviews conducted at crucial points in the research process withparticipants, school administrators, and other school staff members.

Over a period of two years, meeting weekly on-site in the schools, theARCS teams identified and developed research questions and strategiesto address their school-wide concerns. Teachers working in collaborationwith university researchers targeted their action research studies toaccomplish programmatic changes. Both teams involved all school staffmembers in their research. Both studies focused on the evaluation andanalysis of school-based scheduling issues and their impact on curricu-lum and instruction. The New Hampshire team specifically dealt withthe relationship between teacher morale and job satisfaction and anumber of organizational changes and practices occurring at theirschool, while the Michigan team included parents and students as wellas staff members in examining their school's current scheduling practicesand philosophy. In essence, the ARCS project involved two levels ofresearch: a specific research project in each school, plus a meta researchstudy of the collaborative action research process and individual teacherstages of development.

Comparison of Teachers at Different Stagesof Adult Development

A major design feature of the ARCS project was its focus upon teach-ers chosen to represent different developmental stages. Each team, for

99

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f B

irm

ingh

am]

at 0

3:19

07

Oct

ober

201

4

ooTable I

COMPARISON OF STAGES OF DEVELOPMENT

Stages of Development

ARCSTEACHERSSTAGES OFDEVELOPMENT

n = 1

n = 4

n = 3

n = 2

Ego Development(Loevinger)

Presocial

Symbiotic

Impulsive

Self-ProtectiveTransition

Conformist

Self-AwareTransition

Conscientious

IndividualisticTransition

Autonomous

Integrated

Moral Development(Rest, Kohlberg)

Preconventional(Stages 1 & 2)

Conventional(Stages 3 & 4)

Post-Conventional(Stages 5 & 6)

CognitiveDevelopment

(Piaget)

Sensori/Motor

Preoperational

ConcreteOperations

Concrete/FormalOperations

Full formalOperations

ConceptualDevelopment

(Harvey, Hunt, Schroder)

UnilateralDependence

NegativeIndependence

MutualDependence

Interdependence

InterpersonalDevelopment

(Selman)

UnilateralRelations

BilateralPartnerships

HomogeneousRelations

PluralisticRelations

Total 10 TeachersAdapted from Oja, 1980, "Adult Development Is Implicit in Staff

Development." The Journal of Staff Development, Vol. 1, No. 2.

si

£§£

« <-i

is

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f B

irm

ingh

am]

at 0

3:19

07

Oct

ober

201

4


example, included teachers in the four common adult stages of develop-ment: the conventional stage, the self-aware transitional stage, the con-scientious stage, and the individualistic stage. Table 1 characterizes thesestages in terms of ego development (Loevinger), moral judgment(Kohlberg, Rest) conceptual complexity (Hunt), and interpersonal sen-sitivity (Selman).

The ARCS researchers found that teachers at different developmentalstages reacted differently to collaborative action research; behaved differ-ently in action research teams; thought differently about authority andleadership; conceived of change differently; and understood the goalsand outcome of research differently.

The final report documents in depth the profiles of individual teachersat different stages of adult development.

Conventional Teachers

Five teachers out of the 10 participating in ARCS' two action researchteams can be categorized at the conventional stage of adult develop-ment. One teacher scored at the Conformist ego stage, with a moder-ately high conceptual level. This conventional teacher perceived changeas an external process, a simplistic way of solving problems. Accordingto this perspective, change was viewed as a discrete episode rather thanas a process over time with past, present, and future implications.Teachers who exhibit such a conventional perspective seem to be moreconcerned with issues of authority and control, with minimizing contro-versy, and with maintaining rules or implementing policies than withquestioning the purpose of these rules-policies.

The conformist-stage teacher tended to resort to arguments based onhis authority, knowledge, and control, which came from his position asa part-time administrator. Consistent with his stage perspective, thisteacher also viewed the role of the university researcher as director andorganizer of interests in the group, who must guide the team in carryingout the research process. Although this conventional teacher in theARCS project left after year 1 to assume a principalship in another schooldistrict, he continued to stress the team's need for more universityresearcher direction in his final interview.

However, team meeting transcripts and documentation from the sec-ond year of the ARCS project indicate that the conventional teacher'sabsence actually enhanced his team's ability for self-direction and goalachievement.

Four teachers functioned at the self-aware transition stage of develop-ment. As their scores indicate, all four of these teachers, in transition

101

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f B

irm

ingh

am]

at 0

3:19

07

Oct

ober

201

4


between the prior Conformist ego stage and the subsequent Conscien-tious goal-oriented stage, exhibited increased self-awareness and abeginning appreciation and understanding of multiple possibilities oralternatives in problem-solving situations.

Although their feelings were expressed in vague or global terms, thesetransitional teachers demonstrated a growing awareness of inner emo-tions and an enhanced capacity for introspection. Characteristic of theself-aware stage of development, needs for group acceptance continuedto supersede individual needs for some of the teachers. For example,two transitional teachers stressed that fulfilling the needs of others wastheir goal for this project, rather than any personal gains they mightearn from participating. However, the two remaining transitional teach-ers did emphasize career goals and growth which would benefit boththemselves and the school as a whole. This difference among perceptionsof teachers scoring at the same developmental stage was not surprisinggiven one of the teacher's inability to assume team task responsibilities,while the other teachers demonstrated high commitment and involve-ment in project tasks. Perhaps this difference also reflected the movementof at least two transitional teachers toward the conscientious stage.

Conscientious Teachers

Three of the ten teachers in the ARCS project functioned at theconscientious developmental stage, which reflects an intense level ofgoal orientation. Each of the goal-oriented teachers seemed capableof self-criticism and internalizing rules. Guilt was the consequence ofbreaking inner rules, while exceptions or contingencies were recognizedin direct relation to a growing awareness of the subtleties of individualdiffeiences. These conscientious teachers viewed behavior in terms offeelings, patterns, and motives rather than simple actions. Achieve-ment, especially when measured by self-chosen standards, was crucial.In fact, many of the comments made by these teachers during teammeetings illustrated a preoccupation with obligations, rights, traits,ideals, and achievement defined more by inner standards and less bythe need for external recognition and acceptance.

Although one teacher in this conscientious-stage group felt confidentand assertive about his opinions, his extreme stability sometimes causedrigidity toward change in general. In order to solve the problems he sawas the team's goal, he tended to find and use formulas, seeking the rulesor laws which governed behavior and interaction in the system. Whilethis allowed him to work on the problems identified by the group andmove the team along, it prevented him at times from looking at alter-

102

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f B

irm

ingh

am]

at 0

3:19

07

Oct

ober

201

4


natives or subtleties in problem situations. However, this teacher initi-ated and completed the school history and became the spokesperson forhis team, serving as its liaison to the school and school system admin-istration.

For several reasons, the second teacher in this group manifested theconscientious-stage characteristics quite differently than the other twoteachers who shared this stage. First, she was in transition to the nextdevelopmental stage in some dimensions of her thinking. Second, shehad considerably less experience in this school than the first teacherdescribed above. Third, her interpersonal orientation had not yet pro-vided her with power in the school. However, she initiated to a largeextent the team's concentration on its research questions/design, andshe used team meetings as a forum within which her concerns aboutteaching and work could be voiced. For this teacher, the ARCS projectwas a set of resources available to help her cope with changes. Sherealized that the issues causing her stress in school were not going tochange, so she had to change. This meant moving toward her ownsystem of internal reinforcement. The confidence and skills that thisteacher gained from the project, plus her deeper appreciation for indi-vidual differences, the contribution of team members, and the prin-cipal's job in the school/district, all helped her define herself and herteaching and her profession clearly, especially in terms of the reality ofschool context issues and decision making.

Although sharing many of the same general stage characteristics asthe two previous teachers in this group, the third teacher's personalgrowth and development during the ARCS project was significantlyinfluenced by several school context issues. For example, at the begin-ning of the project's second year, this teacher felt that her profes-sionalism was being challenged when she was mandated by the districtto participate in a specific staff development program whose skills shehad mastered long ago. After this incident, analysis of team meetingdocumentation revealed that this conscientious teacher seemed to with-draw from the group by lowering her expectations and commitment inorder to guard against further demands which might not take intoaccount her level of skills and experience. Another important issue forthis teacher was her loss of the individualistic-stage teacher who left theteam after the first year of the project. In both team meetings and herlogs, this conscientious-stage teacher said she " . . . had looked to thisother teacher as a resource and a catalyst for her own thinking aboutnew perspectives." Without her mentor's stimulus and creative ideas,the conscientious teacher felt less stimulated and positively challengedas she had experienced the prior year.

103

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f B

irm

ingh

am]

at 0

3:19

07

Oct

ober

201

4


Individualistic Teachers

Two teachers in the ARCS project scored at the individualistic stage ofego development, and both achieved high conceptual level scores. Theseteachers were on different teams in the project.

The individualistic-stage teacher mentioned above said she left theteam after the first year because her perspective was represented byothers; however, team meeting documentation indicated that her per-spectives on school, classroom, and teaching/learning issues were quitedifferent and more encompassing than those of her other team mem-bers. It was this teacher who consistently brought a more integratedstudent perspective to the team's discussions. In her journal and inter-views she indicated she was concerned with becoming more of her ownperson with autonomy, inner harmony and less dependence on col-leagues, spouse, critics, or mentors. Analysis of this teacher's interper-sonal development revealed that she saw the group as a homogeneouscommunity.

It is interesting in comparison to note that the other team'sindividualistic-stage teacher saw the team from a more pluralistic per-spective. The first teacher, however, regarded loyalty to the team and in-terpersonal relations as based upon a common ground (homogeneity ofvalues). When her views were clearly different from the rest of the actionresearch team group, she felt out of place and could not remain totallycommitted to the project. Had she been supported to view the groupfrom a pluralistic perspective, she might have been able to remain on theteam and find a successful compromise which would have enabled herto use and enhance her skills and her differences on the team, as did themore self-defining individualistic-stage teacher on the other team. Thisexample shows her placement in the transition to the more autonomousstage of development. For a further account of this teacher's particulartransition issues see Oja and Ham (1984).

The second teacher in the individualist stage demonstrated anincreased ability to tolerate paradox and contradiction along withgreater conceptual complexity. He was aware of discrepancies betweeninner reality and outward appearances, between psychological andphysiological responses, and between process and outcomes. This indi-vidualist teacher viewed the team from a pluralistic perspective anddefined collaborative group leadership as including multiple functionsrequiring more than one kind of leader for specific tasks. He saw him-self, the university researcher, and other team members assuming vari-ous tasks as different needs arose. He became very active in creating

104

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f B

irm

ingh

am]

at 0

3:19

07

Oct

ober

201

4


computer programs for data analysis, and pushed the team to outlineand begin work on its final report. Once the ARCS project ended, thisteacher continued to investigate the possibilities of further actionresearch. Not limited by the definitions of duties, performances, or workroles dictated by the school, he had redefined his career in the school. Inthis respect, the more self-defining teacher may be viewed as enteringthe autonomous stage where an interdependent self-definition retainsprimary focus, and self-actualization becomes the goal.

For further case study descriptions of the interactions, team work, andgroup process of these teachers grouped in different stages of develop-ment, see the final report in its entirety, Oja and Pine (1983).

Collaborative Action Research Process

Collaborative action research is dynamic and phenomenological innature reflecting the applied nature of the teaching profession and itsongoing need to act, a need which cannot be delayed until researchresults have achieved a pre-established level of certainty. In collaborativeaction research, continuous cultural change in the school as well as theunsynchronized intentionality of individual teachers is reflected in ahesitancy which is not characteristic of other research approaches. Theconclusions reached are tentative generalizations subject to continuousrevision. Collaborative action research is ongoing in conception ratherthan periodic or comprised of discrete entities.

"Ongoing tentativeness" becomes implementable through recursion.The data, the generalizations, and even the research questions them-selves are resubmitted along with whatever new empirical data havebeen accumulated to achieve revised, albeit tentative, generalizations.

Recursion as the basic action-research process of ARCS assumes thereare no conclusions but rather ongoing, indeed infinite, revisions. Col-laborative action research constantly calls upon its own results and/orelements for the development of new results and/or elements. Recursionwas a mainstay in the conception of ongoing tentativeness built into theARCS project.

In the collaborative action research approach of ARCS not only werethe data collected subject to revision, but the problems themselves werein a continuous state of dynamic revision. The research questions weredeveloped and redeveloped through a process of redefinition thatreflected the emergence of new data and/or contexts. The teams pro-ceeded through different phases of research in a recursive rather thanlinear fashion. (See Table 2)

105

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f B

irm

ingh

am]

at 0

3:19

07

Oct

ober

201

4

YEARl

October-December 1981Problem identification relatedto discussion of schoolcontexts

January-March 1982Survey of staff to help inproblem identification

March-May 1982Research design and development

YEAR 2

September-December 1982Data collection and decidinghow to analyze data

January-June 1983Data Analysis andPresentation of results atnational conference and localschool boards and final reportwith recommendations to staffand principal

Table 2EXAMPLE OF RECURSION—PROBLEM IDENTIFICATION

Research ProblemI1

Defined as:• Time management, quality of work life• Student motivation and achievement• Decision making, role of principal• Staff development, educational change

IIRedefined as:• Scheduling to promote intellectual and affective development of

middle school child.• Scheduling to promote quality of work life and professional

productivity of teachers• Grouping? Team Teaching? Teaching of reading?

IIII

Redefined as:• Scheduling to accommodate student needs and learning styles

4IV

Redefined as:• Scheduling in terms of parent views of student needs and

learning styles /• Implementing a schedule to accommodate team teaching of

reading, student learning styles?Iv

Redefined as:• Role of the principal, educational change• Staff development, decision making

Recursion 1

Student motivation andachievements redefined interms of learning styles

Recursion 3

Decision making, role ofthe principal, educationalchange, staff developmentredefined in relation toimplementing teamrecommendations.

Recursion 2

Learning styles redefinedin terms of parent views

>

IS

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f B

irm

ingh

am]

at 0

3:19

07

Oct

ober

201

4


Products and Outcomes

In the ARCS project, teachers concentrated on producing researchwhich would be useful and would contribute to an understanding of thefactors involved in teacher morale and the scheduling practices in theirschools. Although these were common goals shared by all team mem-bers, teachers at different developmental stages perceived, discussed,and achieved the goals in uniquely individual ways.

The teachers on both ARCS teams valued their group process, andperceived growth in themselves as a result of that process. Althoughtheir concerns focused on how the action research results would contrib-ute to improved school practice and educational theory, it was theirexperiences on the team which all teachers said they would transfer intotheir own classrooms, schools, and districts. For the ARCS teachers, theprocess of action research was its most important product holding thegreatest potentiality for effecting change in the schools.

The collaborative action research process contributed to increasedconfidence in the teachers' ability to identify, confront, and solve class-room or school-based problems. Through their participation in ARCS,all teachers become more familiar with research language, methodology,and design. Their involvement also made them better consumers ofeducational research and stimulated some to become more skilledresearchers. During the ARCS project, teachers shared their researchmethodologies and findings at national, regional and local conferencesin addition to their own school districts' staff development committees,school boards, and university facilities. (See Table 3).

In the year following the ARCS project, the Michigan team researchreport was accepted for a paper presentation at a national conference.Two of the Michigan team members were designated by their principalas collaborative research authorities and were appointed to staff devel-opment positions. Likewise, two New Hampshire team members at-tended and presented the teachers' perspective on ARCS and theirteam report at national conferences on educational research.

Teacher-Perceived Outcomes

Teachers on the team expressed a variety of different perceptionsregarding the school context, collegiality with other teachers, them-selves as researchers, and action research approaches to school prob-lems. In-depth analysis of the data indicated these differing perceptionsoften reflect the teachers' stages of adult development. Among thevariety of perceived outcomes were the following:

107

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f B

irm

ingh

am]

at 0

3:19

07

Oct

ober

201

4

Date

May1982November1982

Q

April1983

April1983May1983June1983June1983

Z„ AprilSu 1984

April1984

Table 3DISSEMINATION PRODUCTS OF ARCS

TEACHER PRESENTATIONS

New Hampshire Presentations Date

Syracuse workshop. Two ARCS teams met to Maypresent research proposals and share ideas 1982

Michigan Presentations

Syracuse workshop. Two ARCS teams met topresent research proposals and share ideas

National Staff Development Conference November1982

National Staff Development Conference

February Local District Staff Development Committee.1983 Report on collaborative action research and

relation to staff development credit

January Institute for Research on Teaching, Michigan1983 State University

AERA symposium. Report on ARCS projectand process of collaborative action research

March Local school board. Report on results and1983 implications of ARCS study for the school

district.March Western Michigan State University Forum,1983 report on ARCS project and methodology

collaborative action researchUniversity of New Hampshire graduate course Aprilon Stress in Educational Organizations. 1983

AERA symposium. Report on ARCS projectand process of collaborative action research

University of New Hampshire faculty Maycolloquium. 1983Lesley College Middle School Conference

Presentation to chapter meeting of Phi DeltaKappa

One team member appointed to NationalMiddle Schools task torce

September Two team members designated as1983 Collaborative Research authorities and

appointed to staff development positions inthe middle school

Northeastern Education Research AssociationMeeting (NEERO). Present results of TeacherMorale Study

June1984

Final Team Report accepted for paperpresentation at National Middle SchoolConference

One team member attended AERA and taskforce on middle school

3 Sa" ^

sa-

R O

§ n

|

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f B

irm

ingh

am]

at 0

3:19

07

Oct

ober

201

4


School Context• Better understanding of the working of the school• Greater understanding of the problems and decisions faced by

school administration• Greater knowledge of the complexity of the hierarchy of decision-

making processes in the school• Better understanding of school issues• More fundamental grasp of the relationship among scheduling,

curriculum, and school philosophy• Greater appreciation of the impact of the history of the school on

current problems and issues

Collegiality• Creation of new patterns of communication, collegiality and shar-

ing on the team• Knowledge of the dynamics of collegiality and sharing on the team• Knowledge of the dynamics of collegiality and its influence on

school problem solving• Greater willingness to communicate concerns and to experiment

with solutions• Gaining support and emotional strength from team members in

confronting day to day problems and issues• Sharing and building a common body of knowledge• Feeling more comfortable in the school and able to cope with

pressures of the school day• Greater concern for developing school-wide collegiality

Teacher Skills and Attitudes as Action Researchers• Choosing a school-wide review of the state of practice to develop a

conceptual basis for their work• Using internal resources in the school to examine a problem

(school history, statements of philosophy, demographic data, cur-riculum guides.. . )

• Collecting information from the thinking of other teachers(through survey data and interviews) to define and address prob-lems

• Seeing research design as recursive rather than static• Viewing research as less intimidating and feeling more comfort-

able and knowledgeable in conducting research• Seeing themselves as professionals whose opinions were valued

and respected

Collaborative Action Research• Seeing action research as an effective problem solving model

which can be applied in a variety of school situations

109

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f B

irm

ingh

am]

at 0

3:19

07

Oct

ober

201

4


• Valuing collaborative action research as a model of staff develop-ment

• Viewing collaborative action research as a process for refining andusing teacher capabilities

• Developing a more comprehensive understanding of educationalproblems and their possible solutions

• Experiencing collaborative action research as a source of personaland professional renewal and intellectual stimulation

Collaborative Action Research, Staff Development,and School Improvement

Collaborative action research liberates teachers' creative potential,stimulates their abilities to investigate their own situations, and mobi-lizes human resources to solve educational problems—it is a concurrentprocess of research and staff development. It assumes that educationalpractice requires the confrontation of real problems in the school byconceiving alternatives and testing them out. Practice then becomes thecrucible for innovation, an unobtrusive measure of assumptions, specu-lations, and theories.

Teachers participating in collaborative action research become agentsof their own change. Teachers use action research to grow personallyand professionally, developing skills and competencies which empowerthem to solve problems and improve educational practice. Most impor-tant, collaborative action research is substantial professional inquiry andscholarship in its scope, its epistemology, and its outcome. A practi-tioner with this orientation and skill in action research is no longer staticor dependent on others for professional progress. The practitioner's ownprofessional growth and competence are enhanced. Not only are practi-tioners likely to feel professionally alive, they may also feel empoweredto make significant change in their profession. In meeting these goals,collaborative action research reflects a generic process of inquiry andgrowth for improving schools and promoting staff development. This isthe process which characterized the efforts of the ARCS teams as theyevolved into temporary systems to conduct action research.

Temporary Systems and the Action Research Process

Formed together out of a desire for personal, professional and/orclassroom change, the ARCS teams evolved into temporary systems(Miles, 1964; Goodman & Goodman, 1976; Morley & Silver, 1977; andBenne, Bradford, Gibb, & Lippitt, 1975). A temporary system consists of

110

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f B

irm

ingh

am]

at 0

3:19

07

Oct

ober

201

4


a group of individuals who engage in a joint task for a limited period oftime (Miles, 1964). People come together, interact, create something, andthen disband. Examples include conferences, workshops, institutes,retreats, study groups, and projects. "Such systems are brought intobeing to develop an idea, a plan, a product, a service, or to makesomething happen. When the task is completed, or the time set hasexpired the system is dissolved. Permanent systems, in contrast, exist tocarry out relatively repetitive operations, or to provide services forwhich there is a continuing need" (Gant, South, & Hansen, 1977).

Both of the ARCS research teams functioned as temporary systems inthe permanent systems of their middle/junior high schools. Within tem-porary systems, individuals and groups may behave differently thanthose in the permanent system because there is no necessary commit-ment to permanent organizational change. New structures and normscan be substituted for existing ones and can be tested to determine theirvalue. Power and status differentials may be minimized to facilitate newpatterns of communication and to locate areas of needed change. Forinstance, where teachers can freely interact as peers, new patterns ofproblem solving and new approaches to decision making can be tried.

The ARCS research teams (temporary systems) operated very differ-ently from the ways in which the schools (permanent systems) operated.Instead of relying on students for most of their human contact in theharried atmosphere of the classroom, teachers were able to sit in relativelyuninterrupted settings to discuss professional matters; instead of makingdecisions about a single classroom individually, they became involved injoint planning for the entire school; and instead of having few, if any,adult sources of feedback and encouragement about their teaching per-formances, they worked in a supportive environment in which commen-dations for action were frequent from peers and outside experts.

Peer support, the sharing of ideas, the experience of collegiality andgroup decision making were especially prized by the ARCS teachers. Astemporary systems the action research teams involved individual devel-opment, providing teachers with opportunities to experience and prac-tice different roles and functions; and group development, providingteachers with the opportunity to experiment with interdependent be-havior and to use different methods of problem solving and decisionmaking to achieve the objectives of their inquiry.

Creating New Contexts

The action research teams created their own operational contexts,which contrasted markedly with the operational context of their schools

111

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f B

irm

ingh

am]

at 0

3:19

07

Oct

ober

201

4


(see Table 4). They organized, operated, and developed new norms andstructures in such a fashion as to highlight different assumptions as towhat makes for effectiveness in running schools—their schools in partic-ular. That is, by varying the principles used to organize and to operate

Table 4TEACHER-PERCEIVED SCHOOL AND ACTION RESEARCH CONTEXTS

School Context(Permanent System)

1. Change initiated and managed fromthe top.

2. Hierarchial, principal-managed

3. Information generated formanagement—managementinformation system

4. Norm of mutual tolerance

5. Norm of convention

6. Power concentrated at the principal'soffice

7. Teachers handle limited specificroles and functions

8. Assignment of tasks to teachers

9. Teachers' roles defined andstructured

10. Individual "private cycle" ofproblem solving in the classroom

11. "Behaviorally" busy setting—reactive thinking—cognitivenarrowness

12. Directed and reactive inquiry

13. Immediate, concrete, "in-classroom"perspective of classrooms and school

14. Short term and quick "on demand"problem solving

15. Recipe knowledge

Action Research Team Context(Temporary System)

1. Change initiated and managed fromthe bottom, middle and top

2. Non-hierarchial, self-managed

3. Information generated foreveryone—problem solvinginformation system

4. Norm of collegiality

5. Norm of experimentation

6. Power diffused in the team

7. Teachers handle different roles andfunctions, roles exchanged

8. Teachers develop their own tasks

9. Teachers' roles overlapping andflexible

10. Group "public cycle" collaborativeproblem solving outside theclassroom

11. A setting of pause—reflectivethinking—cognitive expansion

12. Participatory and collaborativeinquiry

13. Detached "out of classroom"perspective of classrooms and school

14. Sustained deliberate inquiry

15. General programmatic knowledge

112

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f B

irm

ingh

am]

at 0

3:19

07

Oct

ober

201

4

Collaborative Action ...

themselves, the teams made more visible corresponding and contrastingprinciples in use in their schools. Consequently, within the contours ofthe ARCS projects the process of action research emerged as moresignificant than the product.

It was not the prospect, probabilities, or specifics of school change thatstood out at the end of the project for the ARCS teachers—it was theprocess of collaboration which led to personal and professional growth.In the teachers' view, it is the process of collaborative action research thathas enduring value. This perspective of effecting change through theaction research process is expressed clearly in the final reports of bothARCS teams which included recommendations that:

• Collaborative action research be applied in all future staff develop-ment and school change efforts

• Collaborative action research be used to allow teaching staff tohave significant influence in selecting the agenda for school andcurriculum change

• The collaborative action research process be used to develop andimplement school instructional schedules

• Teachers skilled in the collaborative action research process usetheir skills in promoting the process with other school staffs atother sites.

In summary, both teams recommended that the context createdthrough the collaborative action research process become the school'scontext for decision making and initiating change.

The assumption that collaborative action research leads to professionaldevelopment may, however, require further investigation. Althoughteachers themselves note that they have changed, and foresee futureprojects or actions which build on newly acquired competencies, nolongitudinal studies exist which investigate the actual use of new skillsor the permanence of change in self-perception or behavior which resultfrom an action research project. Although we can say that the teachersinvolved in this study experienced positive professional growth, furtherstudy is needed to document the longevity of that growth as well as theforms it takes over time.

113

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f B

irm

ingh

am]

at 0

3:19

07

Oct

ober

201

4


BIBLIOGRAPHY

Benne, K. D., Bradford, L. P., Gibb, J. R., & Lippitt, R. O. (Eds.). (1975). Laboratory methodand application. Palo Alto, CA: Sdence and Behavior Books.

Corbett, H. D. (1982). School context and the continuation of innovative practices. Philadelphia,PA: Research for Better Schools.

Corey, S. M. (1953). Action research to improve school practices. New York: Teachers College,Columbia University.

Gant, J., South, O., & Hansen, J. (1977). Temporary systems. Tallahassee, FL: Gant, South &Hansen, P. O. Box 20011.

Goodman, R. A., & Goodman, L. P. (1976). Some management issues in temporarysystems: A study of professional development and manpower, the theater case.Administrative Science Quarterly, 21(3), 494-501.

Griffin, G. A., Lieberman, A., & Jacullo-Noto, J. (1983). Interactive research and developmenton schooling: Executive summary of the final report. University of Texas at Austin:Research and Development Center for Teacher Education.

Huling, L. L. (1982). The effects on teachers of participation in an interactive research anddevelopment project. Unpublished dissertation, Texas Tech University, August 1981;and paper presented at AERA, New York City.

Hunt, D. E., Greenwood, J., Noy, J. E., & Watson, N. (1973, June). Assessment of conceptuallevel: Paragraph completion method (PCM). Toronto Institute for Studies in Education,(mimeographed).

Kohlberg, L. (1969). Stage and sequence: The cognitive-developmental approach tosocialization. In D. A. Goslin (Ed.), Handbook of socialization theory and research.Chicago: Rand McNally, 347-480.

Kohlberg, L. (1973). Continuities in childhood and adult moral education revisited. InP. Baltes & K. Schaie (Eds.), Life-span developmental psychology: Personality and sociali-zation. New York: Academic Press.

Loevinger, J. (1976). Ego development: Conceptions and theories. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.Loevinger, J., & Wessler, R. (1970). Measuring ego development. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass,

Vols. I and II.Miles, M. (1964). On temporary systems. In M. B. Miles (Ed.), Innovation in education. New

York: Teachers College Press.Morley, E., & Silver, A. (1977). A film director's approach to managing creativity. Harvard

Business Review, 55(2), 59-70.Oja, S. N. (1980, October). Adult development is implicit in staff development. The Journal

of Staff Development, 1(2), 7-56.Oja, S. N. (1979). Adapting research findings in psychological education: A case study. In

L. Morris, et. al., Adapting educational research: Staff development approaches. Norman,OK: University of Oklahoma Teacher Corps Research Adaptation Cluster, USOEPublication, 97-112.

Oja, S. N. (1980). The structure of change and stages of adult development. Journal ofResearch Adaptation, 2, 31-35.

Oja, S. N., & Ham, M. C. (1984). A cognitive-developmental approach to collaborativeaction research with teachers. Teachers College Record, S6(l), 171-192.

Oja, S. N., & Pine, G. J. (1983). Final report: A two year study of teacher stages of development inrelation to collaborative action research in schools. ERIC Document Reproductive ServiceNo. ED 248227 Durham, NH: UNH Collaborative Research Project Office.

Pine, G. J. (1979a). Teacher adaptation of research findings through inservice education. In

114

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f B

irm

ingh

am]

at 0

3:19

07

Oct

ober

201

4


L. Morris, et. al. Adapting educational research: Staff development approaches. Norman,OK: University of Oklahoma Teacher Corps Research Adaptation Cluster, USOEPublication.

Pine, G. J. (1979b). Collaborative action research: Teacher emancipation. New EnglandTeacher Corps Exchange, 2, 7-8.

Pine, G. J. (1979c). Collaborative action research and summative evaluation: Case studies.Introspect, 3, 3-4.

Pine, G. J. (1980a). Research adaptation and systematic ad-hocism. Journal of ResearchAdaptation, 2, 9-12.

Pine, G. J. (1980b). Collaborative action research: The integration of research and service. InL. Morris et. al. Research, adaptation, and change. Norman, OK: University ofOklahoma Teacher Corps Research Adaptation Cluster, USOE Publication.

Pine, G. J. (1986) Collaborative Action Research and Staff Development in the MiddleSchool. Middle School Journal 18(1), 33-35.

Rest, J. (1974). Manual for the defining issues test: An objective test of moral judgment. Min-neapolis, MN: University of Minnesota.

Rest, J. (1976). New Approaches in the assessment of moral judgment. In T. Likona (Ed.),Moral development and behavior: Theory and research and social issues. New York: Holt,Rinehart and Winston, 198-220.

Rest, J. (1979). Development in judging moral issues. Minneapolis, MN: University of Min-nesota Press.

Schaefer, R. J. (1967). The school as a center if inquiry. New York: Harper and Row.Schatzman, L., & Strauss, A. (1973). Field research: Strategies for a natural sociology. Engle-

wood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.Selman, R. L. (1979). Assessing interpersonal understanding: An interview and scoring man.ual in

5 parts. Boston, MA: Harvard-Judge Baker Social Reasoning Project.Selman, R. L. (1980). The Growth of interpersonal understanding. New York: Academic Press.Tïkunoff, W. J., Ward, B. A., & Griffin, G. A. (1979). Interactive research and development on

teaching study: Final report. San Francisco, CA: Far West Regional Laboratory forEducational Research and Development, (IR & DT 379-11).

Ward, B. A., & Tïkunoff, W. J. (1982). Collaborative research. Implications of Research forPractice Conference. Washington, DC: National Institute of Education.

115

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f B

irm

ingh

am]

at 0

3:19

07

Oct

ober

201

4

collaborative action research: teachers’ stages of development and school contexts

Documents