Action Research

Action research is a type of research in which educators, rather than academics, inquire to their teaching practices, examine the results of these inquires, and learn how to effect positive change in classroom environments. Educators can work alone or collaboratively, and can conduct their research at the classroom, school, and school district levels. The practice tends to rely most heavily on qualitative methods, although quantitative data collection and analysis methods can also be used.

Keywords Action Research; Collaborative Action Research; District Wide Action Research; Individual Teacher Action Research; Qualitative Data; Quantitative Data; Reliability; School-wide Action Research; Traditional Research; Triangulation; Validity

Research in Education > Action Research

Overview

The term “research” often evokes images of scientists conducting experiments with controlled variables and testing hypotheses. Teachers have long attempted to understand how these theoretical findings relate to what they actually do in the classroom. They know that there are many variables, often interacting in complex, unpredictable ways, that influence their effectiveness in serving the educational needs of children (Brown, 1995). Brown (1995) posed the question as to why, if both educational researchers and teachers are interested in learning about teaching and learning, there has long been a lack of shared understanding between the two regarding how to seek answers to the many questions found in the field of education. However, Ross and Bruce (2012) did show that collaborative action research, for example, improved teacher outlook on “educational research” and “teacher efficacy,” adding weight to the call for qualitative research among educators.

Traditional Research vs. Action Research

Mills (2000) contrasts traditional research with what is known as action research. He explains the two types of educational research that exist and how teachers can themselves begin to find answers in improving their daily practice through action research. In traditional research, the researchers are usually those in academia who perform their studies on experimental and control groups. Researchers start with a theory, obtain data through observation, and test the hypothesis. Relationships between variables are often clarified through statistical analysis. Researchers use quantitative methods to investigate cause and effect relationships and the strength of those relationships. Experiments are conducted in a controlled environment, and when complete, findings are published and can then be generalized to larger populations (Mills, 2000).

In action research, educators conduct the research (Mills, 2000). Action research is a disciplined inquiry that allows teachers to examine their own practices, learn from them, and take action to effect positive change within the contexts of their own teaching environments. This research can be done individually or collaboratively with other educational stakeholders. It can be conducted in a class, school, or district environment (Calhoun, 1993; Ferrance, 2000). It is a cyclical process often using primarily qualitative methods (Mills, 2000) but sometimes using quantitative data collection and analysis methods (Berry, 2005; Calhoun, 1993; Ferrance, 2004; McCarthy and Riner, 1996; Sardo-Brown, 1995; Waters-Adams, 2006) to describe, document, and interpret what is happening. In the years since its development, action research continues to influence education researchers and activists (Glassman, Erdem & Bartholomew, 2013).

To better understand how action research functions in education, it is helpful to note that is has many forms (Ferrance, 2000; Calhoun, 1993; McTaggart, 1997; Waters-Adam, 2006). Noffke's 1997 study (as cited in Noffke & Brennan, 1997) explains that there are different versions of action research in the field of education depending on the history, culture, ethics, and values of those involved in the research and the location in which they practice. Noffke further explains (as cited by Whitehead, 1997) that action research is not one methodology of research; instead, it is a group of ideas that have arisen from different contexts. An overview of the history of action research will help in understanding its current forms and some of the issues that surround its present use.

History of Action Research

The history of action research is commonly thought of as having two stages:

• one from the 1920s to the 1950s; and

• a rebirth of sorts from the 1970s continuing into the twenty-first century (Carr, 2006).

Kemmis & McTaggert (1988, as cited in McTaggart, 1997), credit Kurt Lewin (1946, 1952), a social psychologist, as the first to develop the concept and term of action research. Lewin recognized that as social situations were complicated, it was not possible to predict everything that would need to be done in practice. He came up with a research process that was cyclical, flexible, and responsive in allowing those using it to change their plans accordingly when their experiences gave them new information. Lewin wanted to do more than collect information about various social issues and write about them; he wanted to resolve them in practice (Noffke, 1997). Adelman's 1990 study (cited in Mills, 2000) explains how Lewin respected the powers of reflection, talking with others, making a plan, and taking action that ordinary people used when researching a common problem together.

Stephen Corey was one of the first to use action research in the solution of problems identified in education (Noffke, 1997; Ferrance 2000). He believed that the scientific method would help educators solve problems (Ferrance, 2000). He encouraged teachers to use hypothesis testing with solutions in order to help them improve in their practices (McKernan, 2008). Corey's 1953 work (as cited in Noffke, 1997) explains his belief that everyday problem-solving was actually similar to scientific research. In his view of action research, problems were best solved by cooperative groups of educators who could encourage each other and share talents. The educators could call in experts to consult in their research; however, the educators themselves were responsible for most of it. Corey held that eventually, the quality of the educators' research skills would improve with practice. Yet, McFarland and Stansell (as cited in Ferrence, 2000) explain that action research was criticized in the 1950s as unscientific. Action research was devalued by members of the social scientific community at that time because it believed that research in the social sciences should be able to produce empirical generalizations using quantitative data collection and analysis techniques (Carr, 2006).

Action Research Today

Interest in action research was renewed in the 1970s when educators started to question the usefulness of scientifically designed research that was based on education theory but not practice (Ferrance, 2004). This interest continues into the twenty-first century. Action research is used in teacher preparation programs as a way for teachers to improve their own individual practice in the field, for teacher in-service programs, and as a method of gathering information and making educational reforms in policy, curriculum, and school structure (Ferrance, 2000; McCarthy & Riner, 1996; Sardo-Brown, 1995). Researchers (Allen and Calhoun, 1998; Calhoun, 1993: Delong, 2004; Ferrance, 2000; Hollingsworth, 1997; Hudson, Owen, and Veen, 2006; McTaggart, 1997; Mills, 2000; Waters-Adams, 2006) agree that action research has many definitions, interpretations, and forms. Fortunately, within this great variety there are four universal themes identified by Ferrance (2004) that all action research reflects.

• empowerment of those who participate,

• working with others through participation,

• obtaining knowledge, and

• a commitment to action based on that knowledge to effect positive social change.

Earlier forms of educational research have involved outside researchers doing studies on teachers. Action research gives teachers the opportunity to be in control of asking their own questions and of searching for additional knowledge (Mills, 2000). Being able to systemically investigate, gain better insights into what does and does not work in the classroom, and act on the research gives teachers confidence by improving their skills and validating reasons for the classroom decisions they make. When action researchers share their knowledge with others, they model their commitment to their own professional improvement (Delong, 2004). This commitment to continual problem solving and action can bring new energy to the communities in which they practice and support individual teachers, buildings, and districts in making education reforms (Calhoun, 1993).

Applications

While Ferrance (2000) identified common themes in the various interpretations of action research, Mills (2000) found four common steps, or phases, that researchers were advised to follow when conducting action research. He also found that in each version of action research, the process was cyclical in that by following the four phases, researchers were consistently led back into the process itself. Based on these findings, he created the dialectic action research spiral, which involved a four-step process that included identification of an area of focus, data collection, data analysis and interpretation, and the development of an action plan.

Stages of the Action Research Process

Deciding on an Area of Focus

The first phase of an action research cycle requires the researcher to decide on an area of focus, problem, or question that they want to investigate (Mills, 2000). The works of Elliott and Sagor (as cited in Mills, 2000) suggest that when reflecting about and deciding on this area of focus, the researcher should use four guiding criteria. First, the researcher should make sure that whatever is being considered as an area of focus should involve teaching and learning. Second, the area of focus should be something that is within the control of the researcher. Third, it should be something about which the researcher cares deeply. Fourth, it should involve something the researcher would like to act upon by changing or improving.

Collecting Data

Once the researcher has an area of focus, the second phase of the action research process involves collecting data (Mills, 2000). The type of data collected will depend on the problem or area of focus that the specific researcher has chosen. Action research uses both qualitative and quantitative forms of data (Delong, 2000; Ferrance, 2000, McCarthy and Riner, 1996; Mills, 2000; Waters-Adam, 2006) that the researcher chooses based on the question or area of focus of their practice that they wish to investigate. Careful attention by teachers to the concepts of validity, reliability, and generalizability is important because their understanding and application of these concepts affects the quality of the action research. Teachers need this knowledge both as critical consumers of action research and as action researchers themselves (Mills, 2000).

Validity means that the data actually measure what is supposed to be measured (Mills, 2000). This is important, as action researchers may or may not have support in creating data collection instruments and collecting data (McCarthy and Riner, 1996 and Sardo-Brown, 1995). For example, if the researcher develops a survey with (unintentionally) biased questions, the data will have problems with validity.

Reliability is important as it relates to the consistency of the data (Mills, 2000). Maxwell (as cited in Mills, 2000) further explains that if observations are reliable, other observers of the same events or methods used to describe the events should reflect the same information.

In gathering data that will be both valid and reliable, it is important to use multiple sources of information (Ferrance, 2000; Mills, 2000). The concept of using multiple sources of data is referred to as triangulation (Ferrance, 2000). The action researcher must decide not only what kind of information to collect but also how to collect it (Mills, 2000). In some instances, action researchers independently create their own data-collection instruments. In other action research environments, action researchers may have access to outside support in creating valid instruments (Mills, 2000; McCarthy & Riner, 1996; Sardo-Brown, 1995; Waters-Adam, 2006).

Evaluating & Interpreting the Data

The third stage of the action research process is to evaluate and interpret the data collected (Mills, 2000). Sometimes, at this point, action researchers may find that the data collected may not reflect the problem or area of focus that they had originally felt existed. This is an opportunity for the action researcher to refine or revise their area of focus and to refine or revise the data collecting instruments (McCarthy & Riner, 1996; Mills, 2000). Depending on the question being investigated, the action researcher may have gathered multiple sources of qualitative data, quantitative data, or both. When reviewing qualitative data (which could include information collected from notes, observations, pictures, or case studies) Ferrance (2000) recommends that the information be evaluated holistically. The action researcher could look for themes or trends in the information. Ferrance further states that some quantitative data can be analyzed without technical assistance or statistics. McCarthy and Riner (1996) noted that educators found value in using sophisticated approaches in quantitative data collection and analysis. Because the educators lacked vocabulary and methodological skills in this area, university facilitators were able to assist in data analysis.

In evaluating data, action researchers need to understand the concept of generalizability and how it relates to action research (Mills, 2000). When data is generalizable, it can be applied to settings and contexts that are different from the settings and contexts in which the data was collected. Findings in action research in one class, school, district, or state may not apply to other classrooms, or educational systems and organizations (Mills, 2000; Waters-Adam, 2006).

Making a Plan of Action

Once the data collected has been thoroughly analyzed, reviewed, and reflected upon, the fourth stage in the action research process is to make a plan of action (Ferrance, 2000; Mills, 2000). In this stage, the educator reflects on what change or changes in practice will be made and how the effectiveness of these changes will be evaluated. Ferrance (2000) stressed the importance of making one change at a time based on the analysis of data in order to evaluate correctly that particular change's effect in practice. The levels of action planning whether it involves one teacher, teachers working in collaboration, a school, or entire district, will depend on the nature of the action research that has been conducted (Mills, 2000). Regardless of the level of action planning and the number of people involved, there are several tasks that must be accomplished in this stage. Throughout each task, the action researchers must continue to ask questions and reflect on new information.

The stage of action planning is not limited to the end of the action research process. None of the four stages in action research is done in isolation from the others. Activities in one stage may bring the action researcher back into the activities of another stage. For example, if the action researcher starts with an area of focus and then gathers data, the researcher may find that the data reveals that further reflection on the area of focus is needed and return to the first stage to decide how to refine the question. Reflection and action are ongoing parts of the process (Mills, 2000).

During the plan of action phase, Mills (2000) recommended that seven tasks be addressed in deciding how to act on what has been learned.

• A summary of findings and research questions must be compiled.

• Specific actions that target the findings must be identified.

• Identification of who will be responsible for implementing specific actions must occur.

• Identification of those who will need to be consulted or informed is necessary.

• A decision as to who will monitor and collect ongoing data is required.

• A time line that identifies when the action and monitoring of the action will occur must be specified.

• The researcher must determine what, if any, additional resources will be needed to implement the action plan.

Action Research Forms in Practice

Individual Action Research

Individual action research may occur when a single educator independently seeks to investigate an issue in the classroom and improve upon his or her practice. Students and parents may also be involved in the action research process. Individual action research would provide a path toward inquiry and the implementation of improved practice. It might also be conducted in response to a course assignment in a particular state's teacher preparation and licensure program (Sardo-Brown, 1995), grant, or ongoing professional development program. The teacher may conduct the investigation in relative isolation with limited support and may or may not share the findings with others (Ferrance, 2000; Mills, 2000).

Collaborative Action Research

In collaborative action research, a minimum of two educators work together to address an area of focus of their choice through the action research process. They could be investigating practice within a classroom or a department. They may or may not have access to outside support from others in the school, district, or higher education community (Ferrance, 2000), and dissemination of findings may or may not occur.

School-Wide Action Research

School-wide action research focuses on an area that affects everyone in a particular building. The area of focus could be on organizational and decision-making structures (Ferrance, 2000), school climate (McCarthy and Riner, 1996), or educational equity (Calhoun, 1993). For example, the school may have noticed that particular subgroups of students were not succeeding academically. Teams of school staff (Ferrance, 2000) would work together in each stage of the action research process to learn how to better facilitate student success. School-wide action research may include the engagement of noninstructional as well as instructional staff. It may or may not involve parents or the students in the process. Mills (2000) recommended active involvement of the entire school community as well as a skilled facilitator to lead the community though the process. In addition to gathering and analysis of site data, Calhoun (1993) states that additional information from outside of the school should be included in the decision-making process. This external data could include information from the district, state agencies, universities, grant providers (if any), and federal resources that could impact the decision-making process and implementation of decided actions. Participants in school-wide action research may or may not have outside support available from the district, state, or university community.

District-Wide Action Research

District-wide action research, as the term implies, concerns issues of importance to the entire district. Ferrance (2000) explained that while this form of action research is more complex and requires far more resources, it offers many rewards. Areas of focus could include

• curriculum in a given content area,

• district-wide literacy initiatives,

• the organizational and decision making process of the district,

• community needs,

• student retention

• academic achievement of subgroups,

• transportation,

• school safety,

• professional development initiatives, or

• district-wide academic results or any other issue that the district community sought to investigate and address in a unified manner.

Viewpoints

Ethical & Legal Considerations

Educational action research, in any of its forms, involves research on students (Mills, 2000). Tickle (2001) further elaborated that in action research, teachers are activists who seek to create change within the students they serve and on behalf of those students. One study looked at collaboration between teachers and students to create social change (Kirshner, Pozzoboni & Jones, 2011). To be in a profession that allows one to positively affect the life of a child is both an honor and a privilege. With that honor and privilege comes an awesome responsibility. Those involved in action research will face ethical and legal questions to which they must find answers to before starting the action research process. Action researchers must be clear in their responsibility to treat all participants with respect and in accordance with established school, district, state, and federal policies concerning the use of children in research. Will students and parents be notified and given the opportunity for informed consent regarding the child's participation in such research? What types of data collection will require written permissions? If the teacher, group of teachers, school, or district wish to publish and disseminate their research and findings with others, how will student confidentiality and anonymity be protected (Mills, 2000)? Mills (2000) councils teachers thinking about engaging in action research to seek and follow the advice and direction of professors, administrators, and colleagues to avoid potential problems.

Time

Many scholars in the field of action research address the issue of lack of time in teacher action research (Mills, 2000; Sardo-Brown, 1995; Waters-Adam, 2006). Teachers typically have a given number of tasks to accomplish in daily-allocated preparation time during their teaching schedules. This time is also used, in practice, for meetings with colleagues, administrators, and students; in communicating with parents and guidance counselors; and in a variety of other activities that must be taken in support of the students. Many teachers routinely spend extra hours outside the school day in preparation and materials design, student feedback, and involvement in student enrichment activities. Some districts (Delong, 2004) may provide several days explicitly (set aside) for action research activities such as professional development, collaboration, data gathering, or analysis and action planning. However, one might question how such an allotment of time effectively enables the practitioner to engage in the process of routine reflection, action planning, rigorous and thorough data collection, and analysis that action research demands if it is to be an ongoing systemic inquiry.

Teachers, and those who may wish to use action planning on site or in district endeavors, must be realistic about the time cost of the action research process. This must be weighed against knowledge and potential improvements that thorough action research can bring in benefits to the class, school, and district.

Teacher Unfamiliarity with Research Methods

Waters-Adam (2006) identified teacher unfamiliarity with research methods as a limitation of action research. In some instances, action researchers are able to draw upon the quantitative research skills from area universities who provide consultants, research specialists, or facilitators to assist teachers with developing data collection instruments that accurately measured what they needed to measure and in the statistical analysis of the data. In other instances, action researchers had no assistance with the technical aspects of quantitative methodology.

McCarthy & Riner (1996) documented the problems of instrument validity and lack of experience they found when assisting practitioners. With the help of the research facilitators, school staff was able to redesign instruments that would collect the data they had unsuccessfully attempted to find with the original questionnaires. In the original questionnaires, facilitators had found bias and lack of direction. The research specialists also noted two other typical difficulties that teachers demonstrated when conducting their initial research. At first, independent of the research specialists, teachers did not necessarily understand what to do with the responses their questionnaires generated. Generally, they showed naiveté in data collection. In McCarthy and Riner's (1996) observations, teachers made improvement in research sophistication during the project. However, for many unsupported practitioners in the field, this limitation persists.

Systemic Support

In case studies of action research discussed in the works of multiple authors (Ferrance, 2000; Hollingsworth, 1997; McCarthy and Riner, 1996; and Sardo-Brown, 1995), action researchers sought to inquire, learn, and act upon their practices within educational environments that offered different degrees of systemic support toward their efforts, if any at all. Allen and Calhoun (1998) found in their study of action research used for school-wide improvement purposes that the schools that made the most progress had the most assistance with technical support and staff development. In addition, they found that schools benefited by using internal and external action research facilitators.

Ferrance (2000) made a variety of suggestions of systemic support that action researchers may need. These supports include

• assistance with data collection and analysis,

• access to technology,

• mentoring,

• school and district commitment,

• leadership (in school and district-wide action research),

• external partners with which to collaborate,

• release time and substitute staff,

• facilitators, and

• communication.

Delong (2004) noted the value her district found in providing district-wide support. This support was offered in the form of ongoing professional development that gave teachers access to experts in the field of action research and various content areas; opportunities for teachers to learn about research aspects in general; release time and funding; the opportunity to collaborate with critical friends; group support meetings; opportunities to disseminate research and findings; and the inclusion of action research into district policies and systems.

Multiplicity of Definitions Regarding Action Research & Research in General

There remains confusion as to what counts as action research (Allen and Calhoun, McTaggart, 1997; Mills, 2000; Nofke; 1997; Waters-Adams, 2006). Individual teachers and organizations have to decide what form of action research they wish to take and be able to evaluate strengths and weaknesses in the different approaches advocated by different scholars. From the mixed messages, each action researcher must navigate a path toward choosing the version that will best serve the needs of the students they serve. In addition, as different districts have different ideas as to what counts as action research, the teacher will want to make sure the version they choose will be supported.

The issue of the multiplicity of versions of action research further complicates the efforts of action researchers to share their own findings and learn from the research of others in a public, open forum. Carr (2006) noted that the status and validity of knowledge gained through action research is an issue that remains the subject of much debate. Action researchers must reach a level of comfort with the possibility of having their findings and research critiqued according to different standards in the field of education and at all levels of education.

Terms & Concepts

Action Research: Generally understood to be a systemic, ongoing process of inquiry into what one (as a teacher or educational entity) does in practice. It involves defining an area of focus, collecting data, analyzing the data, and developing a plan of action. Both qualitative and quantitative data can be used.

Collaborative Action Research: Action research that is done by one or more teachers.

District-Wide Action Research: Action research that is done to examine practice across multiple schools within a district. It may include teaching staff, all staff, parents, students, outside facilitators, or a combination of participants.

Individual Teacher Action Research: Action research that is done by one teacher.

Qualitative Data: Descriptive information that is represented in words rather than numbers. It includes videotapes, journals, ethnographic case studies, notes, personal observations, and recordings.

Quantitative Data: Descriptive information that is numerically represented. It includes statistics, probability, surveys, spreadsheets, and tables.

Reliability: Refers to the ability of data to measure the same result over time.

School-wide Action Research: Action research that is done to examine practice at the school level. It may include teaching staff, all staff, parents, students, outside facilitators, or a combination of participants.

Systemic Support: The resources available to the action researcher from the school, district, or greater community in which the action research is being conducted. Examples include research specialists, mentors, time, professional development, and money.

Traditional Research: Uses primarily quantitative research methods and is generalizable.

Triangulation: The use of multiple (at least three) sources of information.

Validity: The ability of data to accurately measure what it is supposed to measure.

Bibliography

Allen, L., & Calhoun, E. (1998). Schoolwide action research. Phi Delta Kappan, 79 , 706-711. Retrieved October 3, 2007 from http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=aph&AN=579689&site=ehost-live

Berry, J. (2005). Quantitative methods in education research. Retrieved October 6, 2007 from the University of Plymouth, Research in Education, http://www.edu.plymouth.ac.uk/resined/resedhme.htm.

Brown, D. (1994). Principles of language learning and teaching (3rd ed.). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall Regents.

Brown, D., & Gonzo, S. (Eds.). (1995). Readings on second language acquisition. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall Regents.

Calhoun, E. (1993). Action research: Three approaches. Educational Leadership, 51 , 62-66. Retrieved October 3, 2007 from http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=aph&AN=9401101281&site=ehost-live

Carr, W. (2006). Philosophy, methodology and action research. Journal of Philosophy of Education, 40 , 421-435. Retrieved October 4, 2007 from http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=aph&AN=23481793&site=ehost-live

Delong, J. (2004). Action research implemented in the Grand Erie District School Board: Impact on teacher development, improvement and the support system. Lecture presented at the 2004 Japanese Association of Educators for Human Development. Retrieved October 3, 2007 from http://schools.gedsb.net/ar/articles/japan_march_2004.html.

Ferrance, E. (2000). Action research: Themes in education. Retrieved October 3, 2007, from Brown University, Education Alliance, http://www.alliance.brown.edu/pubs/themes_ed/act_research.pdf.

Glassman, M., Erdem, G., & Bartholomew, M. (2013). Action research and its history as an adult education movement for social change. Adult Education Quarterly, 63, 272-288. Retrieved December 20, 2013 from EBSCO Online Database Education Research Complete. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ehh&AN=88417485&site=ehost-live

Hollingsworth, S. (ed.). (1997). International action research: A casebook for educational reform. London: Falmer Press.

Hudson, B., Owen, D., & Veen, K. (2006). Working on educational research methods with master’s students in an international online learning community. British Journal of Educational Technology, 37 , 577-603. Retrieved October 3, 2007, from http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=aph&AN=20856989&site=ehost-live

Kirshner, B., Pozzoboni, K., & Jones, H. (2011). Learning how to manage bias: A case study of youth participatory action research. Applied Developmental Science, 15, 140-155. Retrieved December 20, 2013 from EBSCO Online Database Education Research Complete. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ehh&AN=62610517&site=ehost-live

McCarthy, J., & Riner, P. (1996). The Accelerated Schools inquiry process: Teacher empowerment through action research. Education, 117 , 223-229. Retrieved October 3, 2007, from http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ehh&AN=9703132140&site=ehost-live

McKernan, J. (2008). Curriculum and imagination: Process theory, pedagogy and action research. New York: Routledge.

McTaggert, R. (Ed.). Participatory action research: International contexts and consequences. Albany: State University of New York Press.

Mills, G. E. (2000). Action research: A guide for the teacher researcher. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Noffke, S. E. (1997). Themes and tensions in US action research: Towards historical analysis. In S. Hollingsworth (ed.), International action research: A casebook for educational reform. (pp. 2-16). Bristol, PA: Falmer Press.

Noffke, S. E. & Brennan, M. (1997). Reconstructing the politics of action in action research. In S. Hollingsworth (ed.), International action research: A casebook for educational reform. (pp.63-69). Bristol, PA: Falmer Press.

Ross, J. A., & Bruce, C. D. (2012). Evaluating the impact of collaborative action research on teachers: A quantitative approach. Teacher Development, 16, 537-561. Retrieved December 20, 2013 from EBSCO Online Database Education Research Complete. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ehh&AN=83369773&site=ehost-live

Sardo-Brown, D. (1995). The action research endeavors of six classroom teachers and their perceptions of action research. Education, 116 , 196-201. Retrieved October 2, 2007, from http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db+ehh&AN=9602201707&site=ehost-live

Tickle, L. (2001). Opening windows, closing doors: Ethical dilemmas in educational action research. Journal of Philosophy of Education, 35 , 345-359. Retrieved October 2, 2007 from http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=aph&AN=5559924&site=ehost-live

Waters-Adams, S. (2006). Action research in education. Retrieved Oct. 5, 2007 from the University of Plymouth, Research in Education, http://www.edu.plymouth.ac.uk/resined/actionresearch/arhome.htm#INTRODUCTION.

Whitehead, J. (April, 1999). Action research in teacher training and in the living theories of professional educators. Paper presented at the Greek Centre for Educational Research at the University of Patras, Greece. Retrieved October 5, 2007 from http://people.bath.ac.uk/edsajw/writings/greece.DOC

Suggested Reading

Carr, W., & Kemmis, S. (1986) Becoming critical: Education, knowledge and action research. London: Falmer.

Craig, D., Patten, K. (2006). Action research in the online environment. International Journal of Learning, 13 , 157-168. Retrieved October 7 from http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ehh&AN=24978684&site=ehost-live

Feldman, A. (2007). Teachers, responsibililty and action research. Educational Action Research, 15 , 239-252.

Fryer, E. (2004). Researcher-practitioner: An unholy marriage. Educational Studies 30 , 175-185. Retrieved October 8, from http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=aph&AN=12529173&site=ehost-live

Kemmis, S., & McTaggert, R. (eds.). (1988). The action research planner (3rd ed.). Victoria, Australia: Deakin University Press.

Schoen, S. (2007). Action research: A developmental model of professional socialization. Clearing House 80 , 211-216. Retrieved October 7, 2007 from http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=aph&AN=25891801&site=ehost-live