The Alberta Initiative for School Improvement (AISI) Has Provided More Than $M400 Over

Action Research in Alberta Schools (2000 – 2006).

David Townsend and Pamela Adams

[Note: Portions of this text have appeared in other publications by the two authors.]

Introduction

The Alberta Initiative for School Improvement (AISI) has provided more than $M400 over six years to support projects in all schools that “address local needs and circumstances to improve student learning” (Alberta Learning, 2004, p. 13). Approximately $122 per student, per year, in added funding has stimulated a level of interest and engagement in school-based research that may be unique in North America.

Fifteen years ago, only a relatively small number of teachers in Alberta knew much about action research. By the mid-1990s, regional professional development consortia and a few school districts were offering financial incentives to encourage teachers-as-researchers, but participation was still limited ( Alberta Teachers’ Association, 2001). However, by 2006, a large majority of the nearly 1000 funded AISI projects were identified as action research. There is little doubt that the Initiative has encouraged hundreds of project teams to adopt action research as their methodology of choice for gathering, analyzing, and reporting the results of their efforts.

Related Literature

The influence of authors such as Calhoun (1994), Carr and Kemmis (1986), Carson (1992), Elliott (1991), McKernan (1996), McTaggart (1982), Sagor (1992), Schmuck (1997), and Stringer (1996) can be seen in the kind of action research attempted by these school teams. Nevertheless, the quality of action research can vary dramatically from one site to another and, in several instances, participants’ claims that they are “doing action research” do not hold up well under close scrutiny. Were it not for the fact that a good number of projects have demonstrated a general fidelity to method, discipline, and action based on learning, showing results that are verifiable and evidence that is persuasive, Alberta might be facing a set of circumstances similar to those described by Kemmis (1993). In explaining one of the reasons why action research almost disappeared from North America in the 1950s, Kemmis contends that when it came to be seen as amateur research, action research lost its attraction for academics and teachers alike, albeit for different reasons.

Context

In the period 2000-2006, our small university research team was involved with 114 schools, in 12 districts, as they tried to use action research to achieve the goals of their school-based projects. Our involvement ranged from episodic advice and consultation to regular monthly meetings extending over a range range from six months to three years; from helping with data collection, analysis, and report writing to sharing team-teaching responsibilities; and from large-scale workshops to intensive mentoring of teachers, administrators and student-teacher interns.

Types of school communities

One product of these experiences has been a provisional set of descriptors of schools as communities, and some tentative conclusions about the types of communities that are more and less likely to be successful in using an action research approach to their professional work.

Descriptors of Communities

The following five types of school communities comprise a working construct created from the literature on learning communities, direct observation, and the contributions of colleagues in schools. No one school fits neatly within any one classification, as most school communities include people at all stages of readiness for new experiences, all stages of concern, and all levels of experience.

Withdrawn was selected as the term most able to account for characteristics of those school communities in which too many members have separated themselves from the responsibilities and expectations embedded in such documents as policy handbooks, mission and vision statements, school goals, professional growth plans, and the code of professional conduct.

The second classification, Reactionary, evolved primarily from our experiences with schools and systems embroiled in such confrontations as strikes, lockouts, and work-to-rule actions. As well, we were able to observe reactionary behavior in educators attempting to deal with unresolved conflict, frustrated idealism, and issues of ascendant and descendant power.

The choice of the word Benign represents a compromise among terms such as passive, mediocre, unresponsive, and unmotivated. The dominant ethos of benign communities appears to be compliance.

Adaptive communities contain a sufficient number of members who show initiative, productivity, and hopefulness so that the community appears to be moving forward. Collaboration is common, and the work of teams is goal-focused.

Generative was chosen as the word that best captures a spirit of enthusiasm, efficacy, mutual respect, and dynamism found in those communities, most of whose members believe they are embarked on a long journey of learning and discovery.

Withdrawn Communities

The responsibilities of action research are not attractive to members of withdrawn communities. If these types of schools showed any interest at all in working with university researchers, they might start with a request for us to make a short presentation to the staff. The following anecdote provides an example of a typical withdrawn school community going through the motions of responding to their deputy superintendent’s invitation to join a district-wide action research initiative.

Two university researchers and the deputy superintendent attended the afternoon session of a professional development day. Their task was to outline the district’s proposed action research initiative and answer any staff members’ questions about the costs and benefits of participation. It took almost twenty minutes beyond the scheduled starting time before everyone was assembled and the meeting began. From the start, the tone was sullen. Through body language and negative comments some attendees made it clear they did not want to be there and they did not want to participate in anything that was being proposed. Some teachers were flippant to the point of rudeness. Some were embarrassed. The brief presentation quickly turned into a question-and-answer session, with two long-term staff members providing most of the commentary and interrogation. We learned that the school staff had been encouraged by their principal to show an interest in differentiated instruction, and most of them had read the same book on the topic. One of the more outspoken teachers insisted that the university researchers should provide the staff with a clear definition of differentiated instruction. One university person responded by noting that the book they had read contained several definitions, and it would probably be more useful if the staff selected one of those, or created one of their own. The teacher got quite angry. She declared that she had been teaching for 25 years and there was nothing in any of this so-called new stuff that she had not done, or was not currently doing. She suggested that if that was the best the external people could offer, they may as well just leave. She said, “ Our staff gets the best results on achievement tests of any elementary school in this district. Why should we change what we’re doing just because these university people want us to do research?”

At this point, the deputy superintendent indicated that no one was going to be forced to participate, and the district would accept whatever decision the staff made. After a few more uncomfortable exchanges, the meeting was over. The next day, the principal informed the deputy superintendent that his school would not be participating.

Reactionary Communities

In the early stages of negotiation with communities that displayed more reactionary tendencies, it was often very difficult to determine the motivation of potential team members. Some wanted so much to be involved that their zeal turned others away. Some appeared willing to participate if they could use the project as a way of getting ahead. Some clearly wanted to use their team involvement to confront or subvert the leadership of their school administrators. Alternately, some principals wanted their schools to have a project team staffed only by loyal teachers, or those who would work on a project favored by the principal. Frequently, the level of dysfunction in such groups did not reveal itself until the pressure of evidence-based practice began to build. Two or three monthly meetings could go by before some team members began to run out of excuses for failing to complete tasks they had agreed to perform. While conflict occurred in most meetings, team members’ unwillingness to resolve conflict increased proportionate to their inability to provide evidence of task-completion and progress toward the achievement of team goals.

Benign Communities

One characteristic of members of benign communities was an apparent belief that most difficulties they faced as a staff had to do with student behavior. They typically chose projects that focused on classroom management, and more often than not on the behavior of small, easily identified groups of students. They tended to accept that external standardized tests are adequate measures for determining the success of their projects, confirming their taken-for-granted assumptions about the close connection between student behavior and student achievement. Teachers in benign communities showed a preference for such things as marks, homogeneous grouping, static timetables, traditional seating patterns, and rules.

Adaptive Communities

Members of adaptive communities tended to choose projects with a focus on student learning. They showed a genuine enthusiasm for the process that helped teams refine their question to guide the inquiry, a bias for problem-solving, a willingness to deal with inevitable group conflict, and a strong commitment to results. On the other hand, they were often overly competitive in the early stages, taking on too much extra work, and showing greater concern for their own learning than the day-to-day learning of their students that resulted from their new knowledge and skills.

Generative Communities

Teachers in generative communities showed the clearest ability to relate their project involvement to mission and vision statements, school and district goals, and professional growth plans. At their best, they produced more artifacts of learning, more evidence of success, and a greater willingness to share their experiences with others, inside and outside their own schools. They were most effective in their ability to collaborate and to foster team norms of inclusion. Many of them were identified through their project involvement as leaders in such areas as assessment, the use of innovative instructional practices, and the development of new learning resources. A serious problem for some of these educators was that their obvious effectiveness led to increasing demands on their time out of their own classrooms.

The following table provides a brief analysis of ways that members of different communities act, react, or respond when they attempt to take part in school-based projects that use an action research approach.

Table 1

Types of Communities

Characteristics / Withdrawn / Reactionary / Benign / Adaptive / Generative
Student learning / Students appear to succeed despite the system. Students are allowed to fail / Learning is compartmentalized. Responsibility for student success is contested by staff / Emphasis is on passing grades and meeting standards / Students, parents and teachers are involved and generally optimistic / There is an expectation that all children will learn. Excellence is a goal
Staff learning / Its importance is not generally acknowledged / It is individualistic and often not focused on goals / Staff pay episodic attention to professional growth with low levels of commitment / Commitment to ongoing learning is high / Learning is linked purposefully to goals and vision. Development is sustained
Leadership / Formal leaders are inaccessible / Leadership is limited in its effectiveness. Cliques prevail / Accountability and management are emphasized / Clear integration of formal and informal leadership roles is apparent / Ethical conduct and shared responsibility are emphasized
Staff Relationships / Interactions among staff are limited and cursory / Relationships are often used for power and control. Characterized by a lack of trust and mutual respect / Interactions are formalized and predictable / Trust is evident in formal and informal relationships. Collegiality prevails / Members of the school community strive to maintain and improve interpersonal relations
How work gets done / In isolation and, sometimes, incompetently / Grudgingly, often separately, and on members’ own terms / Often without enthusiasm, but competently / Willingly and responsibly, often in collaboration with others / Enthusiastically and caringly. Synergy results
Decision making / Low levels of participation and commitment to outcomes are normal / Meetings are often disputatious and acrimonious, aimed at settling scores or obstructing progress / Limited debate. Leaders are encouraged to make most decisions / Informed debate and respectful resolutions / A continuous, integrated process. Consultation and communication are valued
Commitment / Few people seem to care / Divided, personal, and private / Low levels of engagement and interest are typical / Stakeholders show respect for the intent of mission, vision, and goal statements / Stakeholders actively seek to live out the spirit of mission, vision, and goal statements
Sense of belonging / Many see themselves as outsiders, with a diminished sense of the history of the workplace / Very low levels of loyalty to the school or district / Moderate levels of identification with the school or district / Strong sense of identity and collective memory. Attachment to traditions / Highly refined sense of belonging in a caring climate. Purposeful displays of school and district symbols
Connection to goals / Goals are either non-existent, or not aligned with mission and vision. Such statements may not even exist / Active resistance to any attempts to draw connections between goals, mission, and vision / Sufficient to meet minimal conditions of accountability / Strong alignment among goals, mission, and vision / Development of and commitment to goals, mission, and vision is a generally-accepted responsibility
Connection to personal action / Reasons for actions are rarely discussed / Reasons for actions are highly personal. Criticism of the actions of others is common / Reasons for actions are mostly accepted without much debate / Actions are justified with reference to such things as principles, goals, mission, and vision / Actions are frequently collaborative, based on and contributing to continuing reflection
Recognition and celebration / Very low levels of interest or participation / Unevenly practiced. Recognition of some is seen as rejection of others / Infrequent and rarely spontaneous. Celebrations are routinized / Strong emphasis on awards, rewards, and symbols of success. Celebrations are valued / An essential part of the work lives of most community members
Evaluation of Staff / Minimal and random / Highly judgmental, destructive of trust, and often counter-productive. / Traditional and fairly formal. Moderate levels of engagement. / Used comprehensively to help staff achieve goals. / Constantly evolving, and fully integrated with practice.

Connections to Action Research