1

Action Research and Educational change in Higher Education: a case study

Vincent Donche & Peter Van Petegem[1]
University of Antwerp, Belgium

Revised paper presented in network 10 (Teacher Education Research) at the European Conference on Educational Research , University of Hamburg, Faculty of Educational Research, Hamburg, 18th september 2003.

ABSTRACT Recently an innovative trend of implementing student centred education (SCE) is gradually rising within Flemish education (Belgium). The expected result of establishing more effective innovative practice is however not a true pattern. In order to bridge the gap between the theoretical concepts and the everyday practice of teaching, institutions and the Flemish Government provide financial aids to call into action the assistance of education experts or experts-on-the-task to find a way towards more self regulated learning (SRL) ‘on size’ in Flemish education. Consequently, more than in the past there is the realization of means and possibilities for intensive research of the implementation of open learning. The construction of more action research (AR) within this context results in a growing attention within Flemish educational research.

Keywords: action research, higher education, self regulated learning, educational change

  1. Preconditions
  2. Grounding Open Learning in Flemish Education

In Flemish education there is a growing plea to put the principles of student centred education (SCE) into the everyday educational practice. It is known that this debate is stimulated by different scientific, educational and social angles. In this way the insights deriving from socio-constructivist learning theories, the practices and arrangements to generate SCE and the overall changing skills which a learner has to posses within the post modernistic knowledge and information society, stimulate the consciousness for educational change (

The knowledge generating from a complex of scientific, educational and social arguments put under pressure also the very need for implementing the principles of the concept of Self Regulated Learning (SRL) and realization of the will for educational change. It continuously illustrates that an actual educational paradigm that lacking to adjust to the necessary needs has the real risk to alienate from its fundamental social function. The necessity of a conceptual change, or also called ‘paradigm shift’ (Howell, 1998) is nowadays more commonly felt in Flanders (Donche, e.a., 2002ab, Brandt, e.a. 2001).

This can be demonstrated by the growing presence of a certain socio-constructivist jargon. Closely related terms and phrases like ‘powerful learning environments’, ‘learning to learn’, ‘learning styles’ all gain a certain way of popularity which can be found in e.g. many promotion publications of educational institutions. However this ‘popular talk’ is no direct guarantee for effective realization of these principles within practice. Reality seems to indicate that a tendency towards such an innovation is never to be compared with an equal innovative educational practice. In Flanders like abroad, there is also the known gap between the rhetoric (‘talking the walk’) and practice (‘walking the talk’) of educational innovation concerning SRL (i.e. Bolhuis, 2000). This dichotomy is a challenge for theory practical research to bridge the gap in a pragmatic way. Consequently and as a result there is a growing use of AR in this field of educational change.

1.2 Financial Resources and Networking

The sense for innovative educational change towards more SCE is also felt by means of the efforts and financial aids that are in this context provided in the field of Flemish education in order to give chances to similar educational changes. (e.g. curricula and decrees). The gradually augmenting financial support for innovation projects and the related gap between theory and practice results in a growing attention for and demand of effective coaching of institutions during the implementation processes of SRL into their everyday educational practice. As a consequence there is a tendency to call into action in a direct or indirect way the external support of education experts or hands-on experts in order to coach, facilitate and examine innovations within a specific educational context. Networking between institutions in function of learning to deal with educational change takes therefore more and more place.

On the whole, a network between institutions can be established by means of two types of participation in the field of education. On the one hand one can distinguish a network consisting of a direct collaborative structure that is set up by means of an educational innovative budget that institutions themselves provide for specific case structured external support and coaching during their innovation project. A paradox within this setting is that the growing internal degree of autonomy concerning financial resources of Flemish institutions (Higher Education) seems to stimulate the generation of external supported educational networks. On the other hand a network formed by an indirect collaborative structure is set up i.e. by means of subsidized projects that are supported by the Flemish government. Educational innovation is in this way provided to a larger and more differentiated target group of institutions and is therefore not single case specific. Thereby, a compromise is reached within the specific questions or demands and answers or supplies of the participating institutions during the educational support coaching process. The provided budget for innovation and the collaborative structure of the network are obviously two determining factors in the process of constructing a model of educational AR.

1.3 Research for education

Networking between institutions of education and the financial aids provided for educational innovation create possibilities for more pragmatic educational and participating research on the subject of SRL in Flanders. (Donche, e.a.,2002b) In the near future the specific form and content of educational research on the subject of the realization of more SRL will probably be more and more directed to bridge the so called gap between ‘research about education’ and ‘research for education’ (Carr&Kemmis, 1986:155). The realization of so-called ‘design experiments’ (Brown, 1992) is stimulated and knows a certain ‘élan’ within the Flemish educational research field (De Corte, 2000). The use of action research strategies could play a crucial role in this context when this form of research gains legitimacy within the field. Because of the legitimating powers that are influencing an educational research field, we claim that the emerging shift in research attitude concerning educational change as an other basic precondition that together with other preconditions like the will for educational change, participation, networking and financial aids will have an effect on the output of educational innovative action research strategies in Flanders.

  1. Case-study

The educational research group EduBROn (University of Antwerp, Belgium) builds an emerging network of schools from Higher and Secondary Education in which several coaching and research projects take place(Brandt, W. & Donche V,2002).In this way it participates in the realization of a long-term innovation project (Project Student centred Education) with an institution of Higher Education. Main objective in this collaboration is to support and coach processes of implementation and realization of more SRL within the Business and Management Department.In a first year a pilot project took place.

The coaching and research project within this institution enabled us to realize and investigate a specific ARS within context. Below we sketch in a first part some conditions of the pilot project as there are the research frame, the methodology, and the context derived principles of the research strategy, the network structure and participants, the followed procedure and data collection. The description of these conditions make it possible to contextualize in a second part, the reflections about effective realization and coaching of innovation processes directed to SCE and the possibilities and boundaries of the used action research strategy (ARS) as a surplus.

2.1 Questions and hypothesis

Constructing the form and content of an adequate framework that has to enable us to coach and realize in an effective or reality-based way the estimated innovation processes, is determined by an enduring set of core research questions such as:

1)Which are the actual innovation visions concerning SRL within the

institution?

2)Which are the possibilities and boundaries that are to deal with in order to

realize these visions upon SRL?

3)Which measures has to be taken in order to support SRL?

4)How can the gap between theory and practice be bridged?

5)In which way is the project construction a surplus for effective realization and coaching of innovation processes directed to SRL?

This final research question refers to the ways in which effective realization and coaching of innovation processes directed to SRL can take place. In our point of view this is determined by two major activities. On the one hand with the direction of large research attention towards four keystones on which every innovation directed to SRL is based. This means acquiring profound insight and knowledge of the developing processes within the vision upon, the capability to, the strategy for and the realization of SRL in the specific innovation directed learning environment. (cf. figure 1)

Figure 1: Research Core


On the other hand, the realization of a coaching with effect, i.e. directed to pragmatic innovation realizations, has to be based upon the growing insights and acquiring knowledge of the existing learning environments within in the institution. Therefore we choose for a construction in which research and coaching activities in the field are continuously brought into a collaborative interaction with each other within the context of a dynamic research and learning process. Furthermore, we stress the utmost primordial importance to the participation and collaboration of as many actors within this collective learning process as possible. We consider this as a guarantee for the realization and institutionalization of innovation. In our viewpoint, the use of a specific context-based action research strategy is therefore an adequate tool. This leads us to the main hypothesis in our research:

The effectivity of realization and coaching of innovation processes directed to SCE can be augmented by the construction of an ARS as a tool to investigate in a specific context the dynamic processes within vision, capability, strategy and realization of SRL and to coach these processes in a pragmatic way towards a reality based and thus feasible innovation process.

2.2 Methodology

From the viewpoint of the overall complexity of educational change, we disagree with the arguments to distinguish separately on one hand coaching and on the other hand research in this context. It is necessary to intermingle them. Furthermore, it would be wrong to consider the set-up of the project as one directed supply, i.e. delivering a blueprint for innovation from an external viewpoint. The reality concerning educational change is complex (Fullan, 2001) and blueprints are not within easy reach. The methodology of the research has therefore to be positioned within the domain of a continuous and cyclic feedback generation upon the innovation process and this from hybrid involvement to which as many as possible actors are actively involved within the different search processes. The methodology of the research therefore put a fundamental stress, concerning the output upon the relevancy of immediate educational practice. In this study we stressed upon a basically qualitative research methodology within the pilot year because we hoped to realize in this phase intensive contact with actors/respondents within the specific educational field. Research that focuses upon the relevancy of the output for immediate educational practice is known to be a surplus (Smaling, 1994). In no sense this means we totally ignored the quantitative methodology. In several cases a mixed method was fruitful. The research methodology is basically characterized by:

  • open data collection;
  • analysis in natural language;
  • cyclic interpretative alternation of collection and analysis;
  • use of informal logic;
  • alternation of distance and personal involvement;
  • dialogical relationship between researcher and researched;
  • data triangulation.

(Source: Miles & Huberman, 1994)

Furthermore, we searched for a methodology that puts a central stress upon intensive contact, collaboration and critical reflection concerning the handling within the everyday educational practice with respondents. Our search for a rationale within the complexity of educational change processes brought us towards the construction of an adequate form of AR.

We interpret AR in the definition of Carr & Kemmis as a research form directed to merge critical self-reflection on practice with a certain rationalization of practice judgments.

Action research is simply a form of self-reflective enquiry undertaken by participants in social situations in order to improve the rationality and justice of their own practices, their understanding of these practices, and the situations in which the practices are carried out (Carr & Kemmis, 1986:162).

Referring to e.g. the theory of Carr & Kemmis (1986:155-178) we consider the following keystones of AR: participation, collaboration and critical analysis. Translated to our situation this means the realization of research in which several actors are involved (e.g. students, lecturers, policy responsibles) and collaborate within cooperative learning groups in order to realize in a critical way the educational innovation processes concerning SRL in everyday educational practice. Because of the stress upon the realization of primarily pragmatic knowledge or so-called practical wisdom in the learning environment, we consider this methodology as adequate for a research set up concerning educational innovation (Eliot, 1991). Furthermore, the fundamental stress upon practice versus theory doesn’t exclude us to generate theory construction concerning educational change directed to SRL. It may even be a surplus in this kind of research expectation.

[AR] constitutes a form of inquiry which fully acknowledges the ‘realities’ which face practitioners in all their concreteness and messy complexity. It resists the temptation to simplify cases by theoretical abstraction but will use and even generate theory of illuminate practically significant aspects of the case. In action research analytic or theoretical understanding has a subordinate relation to the development of a synthetic or holistic appreciation of the situation as a whole (Eliot,1991:52-53).

Viewed from a different perspective the handling of the methodology of AR in the context of SRL draws an interesting parallel between the vision upon the learning process within the context of SCE and the research vision. Both strife similar goals: the stimulus of autonomous thinking, reflective learning (Korthagen, 2001), experiential learning (Kolb, 1984), metacognition, social and affective skills, etc.

The described goals and expectations concerning AR argue for the use of this kind of research strategy within the set-up of the project as a means to stimulate more reflection, collaboration and participation within a rationale. In our viewpoint the understanding of the complexity of the project and the holistic character of the research were interpreted as important key conditions to be able to effectively coach and explore this research in the pilot phase.

2.3 Action Research Strategy (ARS)

Deriving from the main conditions of AR we composed a list of actions which actors had to take into account during the research process. This was considered to be a condition for pragmatic proceeding. Our ARS was characterised by the following principles:

  • generating a cooperative learning group in nucleo;
  • attention for involvement of as many possible actors (policy responsibles, students, lecturers);
  • functioning within different Action Research Groups (ARG);
  • reflective practice;
  • pragmatism;
  • open communication;
  • sharing of experience;
  • participation in the gathering of data concerning thoughts, feelings, knowledge, skills, attitudes towards OL;
  • research attitude;
  • realization of a growing network of innovative practice within the department.

Besides the explanation of these principles and the outlines of the general coaching path an electronic portfolio (EPF) was given to the lecturers. They were asked to write down their project experiences, action plans, role and task commitments, time schedule, appointments, meeting notes within the specific ARG. These aspects were meant to be a solid backing for the realization of the coaching and research project.

2.4 Network and Participants

In the created network (cf. Figure 2) between EduBROn, University of Antwerp and the institution of Higher education, 26 project members participated. We distinguish the educational coaching team formed by 1 project promoter and 2 researchers, the school team consisting of 7 policy responsibles an a group of 16 lecturers. Together they form a network of directly involved participants within the innovation project. Within the network we distinguish 5 action research groups (Action Research Group, ARG) that each were formed on the basis of common features and interests of the lecturers. This resulted in research fields of SRL within the subjects of Marketing, Information Science, Accountancy, French, Marketing and Economics. In each ARG there emerged individual projects (IP) that were

carried out by the lecturers in the educational practice

Figure 2: Research core SCE and division of actors


During the innovation process external coaches carried out a crucial role. For instance they had to function as a facilitators for each network cel and this compromised among other things the following task and role commitments:

  • continuous discussion with involved actors in the project;
  • organizing and leading workshops for participants;
  • Consultancy within the general network and specific ARG;
  • Doing research;
  • Being a mediator in the process;
  • Being critical friend;
  • Being co-learner of innovation.

The communication channels and meeting zones between the different parts of the network consisted of formal, informal and on distance meetings (e-mail). Summaries of interesting points, concerns and reflections were exchanged with project members. On the basis of these direct and indirect forms of interaction and exchange of experiences and data a gradual rising of involvement, participation and collaboration took place between the project members.

2.5 Procedure

Of utmost importance in the initial phase of the pilot year study was the start up and realization of a coaching path for lecturers within an adequate network system. A first step took place in the introductory project session in which policy responsibles were informed about the conditions and principles of the project. Besides, several criteria were formulated which we considered of importance for the selection of the pilot team who had to carry out the innovation in the first phase.