This article was downloaded by: [University of Kiel]On: 26 October 2014, At: 04:30Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registeredoffice: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Educational Action ResearchPublication details, including instructions for authors andsubscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/reac20

Action research: improving graduate-level writingNari Carter aa Educational Inquiry, Measurement, and Evaluation , BrighamYoung University , Provo , UT , USAPublished online: 24 Jul 2012.

To cite this article: Nari Carter (2012) Action research: improving graduate-level writing,Educational Action Research, 20:3, 407-421, DOI: 10.1080/09650792.2012.697403

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09650792.2012.697403

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

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

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

Action research: improving graduate-level writing

Nari Carter*

Educational Inquiry, Measurement, and Evaluation, Brigham Young University, Provo, UT,USA

(Received 2 August 2011; final version received 13 October 2011)

I am a doctoral student enrolled in an educational research program. While com-pleting an action research course, I conducted research to improve my academicwriting and to develop skills for formulating arguments about educational issues.From this research I developed an appreciation for and an understanding ofgood writing habits and elements of strong arguments. Writing allowed me toexplore how my experience shaped my perception of educational issues. I usedwriting as a tool for advocating for individuals to own their development andadvancement and for addressing complexities inherent in education. The resultsillustrate that academic writing can be perceived as a form of action research, inthat writing allows for exploration of possibilities of individual and institutionalgrowth, generates knowledge of self and social and political worlds, and createsrelevant knowledge that can contribute to change.

Keywords: action research; academic writing; graduate studies; self-study

Introduction

I am a currently completing a PhD program in educational inquiry, measurement,and evaluation. Most students enrolled in the program concentrate their studies onstatistics and measurement theory. I am choosing instead to emphasize qualitativerather than quantitative methods. During my second year in the program I enrolledin a course entitled Action Research in Education. Prior to enrolling in the course, Ihad studied qualitative inquiry but had little knowledge of action research. One ofthe course requirements was to complete an action research project of my own toimprove my practice.

Because I was not teaching, the professor suggested that I consider studying mypractice as a graduate student. In thinking about this topic, I reflected on Labaree’s(2003) article on challenges practitioners face as they enter academic worlds (i.e. prac-titioners focus on the particulars of educational contexts, whereas academics are inter-ested in the theoretical and universal) and wondered what challenges doctoralstudents encounter in becoming acculturated to academic work. I recalled a seminarin which a prominent researcher in my field, special education, noted that most doc-toral students experience difficulty with learning to write persuasively (Harris 2009).This recollection prompted my thinking and I began searching for articles publishedon the topic.

*Email: narij@comcast.net

Educational Action ResearchVol. 20, No. 3, September 2012, 407–421

ISSN 0965-0792 print/ISSN 1747-5074 online� 2012 Educational Action Researchhttp://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09650792.2012.697403http://www.tandfonline.com

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f K

iel]

at 0

4:30

26

Oct

ober

201

4

My study of literature on graduate student writing confirmed that becoming pro-ficient at academic writing is challenging for many graduate students, not only forme. Specifically, research indicates that doctoral students: make mechanical andstructural errors when writing (Diezmann 2005); lack confidence and authority intheir writing (Kamler 2008); struggle with formulating arguments or theses that aresupported by evidence (Kamler 2008; Kiley 2009); experience difficulty respondingto critiques of written work (Caffarella and Barnett 2000; Rueda and Monzό 2010);and experience difficulty thinking and writing like scholars (Boote and Beile 2005;Caffarella and Barnett 2000).

Writing is central to research and academic work (Johnson and DeSpain 2004),and the ability to write well and publish original work is critical for academic suc-cess (Aitchison and Lee 2006). Before beginning in graduate studies, I had not real-ized this. I am a non-traditional graduate student (I finished my bachelor’s degreein my early 20s and did not pursue postgraduate education until I was in my 40s).For postgraduate work, I completed a special education licensure program, obtaineda master’s degree in special education, and then began doctoral studies. For boththe master’s degree and doctoral studies I worked as a research assistant for tenuredprofessors. As a graduate assistant I conducted research and co-authored textbookchapters, research articles, and two practitioner books (Carter, Prater, and Dyches2008; Dyches, Carter, and Prater 2011). Although I have published some of mywork, academic writing challenged me more than other facets of graduate-levelwork; and formulating academic arguments was particularly difficult for me.

My experience has confirmed that writing is central to academic work. If Iobtain an academic position upon completing my doctoral degree, I expect writingdemands to intensify, not abate. Furthermore, as an academic, I will not have pro-fessors guiding and directing my work. Thus, my ability to write well on my ownwill become even more important in my practice. Considering the importance ofwriting in my academic work, and the difficulties that I and other graduate studentsencounter with academic writing, focusing on improving my writing ability – inparticular, my ability to formulate academic arguments – seemed to be a worthwhileendeavor and an appropriate focus for the research project.

Action research

While I designed the action research project to improve my academic writing, myintent was also to learn about and develop my ability to effectively conduct actionresearch. In education, action research is a systematic process for solving educa-tional problems and for improving practice (Tomal 2003). Improvements in prac-tice are made as researchers and practitioners apply theory, evaluate outcomes,and generate new understandings of theory as it relates to practice (Gustavsen2001; Reason and Bradbury 2006). When conducting action research, researchersengage in iterative cycles in which they contemplate problems and theory, developplans of action, implement plans and collect data, evaluate results, and shareknowledge with others (Heron and Reason 1997). Action research seeks to pro-duce not only knowledge that is useful to practitioners (Reason 2006), but alsonew understandings that promise to enrich theory.

The current project constituted action research in that the purpose for conductingthe research was to address a problem and improve practice – specifically, improvegraduate-level writing. My approach for improving practice was implementing

408 N. Carter

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f K

iel]

at 0

4:30

26

Oct

ober

201

4

cycles of action (in the form of writing) and engaging in reflective evaluation.Anticipated outcomes of the project were increased understanding of writing pro-cesses as writing relates to academic work, and new knowledge – knowledge thatwould enable me to produce written objects of value to myself and others.

Although the problem-solving aspect of action research focuses on improvingpractice and generating knowledge, the broader purpose for conducting actionresearch is to increase well-being (Reason and Bradbury 2006). Well-being isenhanced as individuals transcend labor and engage in work that provides opportu-nity for action. In discussing action research, Coulter (2002) made a helpful distinc-tion between labor, work, and action. According to Coulter, labor involves routineephemeral behaviors to meet basic human needs and is about survival. Hence,research that focuses on labor seeks insight into how desired ends are accomplished.In education, the purpose for such research is to determine what works so that edu-cational processes can be standardized and implemented on a broad scale (Patton2011). For this research, labor involved understanding writing processes so that Icould acquire skills necessary for academic success.

In contrast to labor, work involves producing lasting objects that express indi-viduality and creativity. New ends (Dewey 1929) such as original works of artemerge from work. Engaging in work generates a sense of enhancement, expertise,and growth (Coulter 2002; Winter and Badley 2007). Educational work-researchaims to produce objects such as knowledge that capture the human experience andthat enable freedom, avoiding fixated interpretations or actions that close down orlimit human growth (Bradbury and Reason 2003). Preoccupation with ends andmeans – instrument reasoning – is transcended as action research supportsexpression of individuality and creativity.

Action research and academic writing

Considering how action research is conceived and applied, engaging in it mightbe considered a noble cause given its potential for enriching lives and improvingpractice. Similarly, academic writing can be enriching and noble in intent. Whendiscussing similarities and differences between action research and academic writ-ing, Winter and Badley (2007) argued that academic writing is actually a form ofaction research. They noted that academic writing and action research bothinvolve: reflecting on practice and policies to make changes; producing work thatis of value to others; exploring possibilities of individual and institutional growth;generating knowledge of self and social and political worlds; and creating relevantknowledge that contributes to change.

In this view, academic writing is similar to action research in terms of pro-cesses and goals. Furthermore, writing as action in action research facilitates con-sciousness in the midst of action. Action research is characterized by criticalsubjectivity, which is self-reflective attention to action and experience. Knowing isgrounded in experience (Heron and Reason 1997). Academic writing is experien-tial, in that it involves reading the works of others, examining personal under-standing and knowledge as it relates to written discourse, and creating works thatare reflective of self and experience (Badley 2009). Writing is then generative,formative, and inventive action as writers write, detach themselves from action toreflect on and evaluate written work, and then revise and refine written products(Flower and Hayes 1981). The aim of academic writing is to produce work that

Educational Action Research 409

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f K

iel]

at 0

4:30

26

Oct

ober

201

4

contributes to personal growth and has potential to inspire growth and action inothers (Winter and Badley 2007).

Yet academic writing can also conflict with aims of action research (Winterand Badley 2007). With academic writing, actions are suggested rather thanimplemented and tested in practice. Often, academics do not write for others.Writing can involve a significant level of egotism, and competitive pressures oftenlead practitioners to use arguments and evidence, ‘not as moves in a conversation(conducted under the auspices of harmony and mutuality as well as truth) but asweapons of attack and defense’ (Winter and Badley 2007, 266). That said, aca-demic writing does potentially provide a space for voicing calls to action and todialogue. Designing an action research project in which writing was action createdspace for me to focus on the experience of writing and to engage in criticalreflection of practice.

Action with others

Finally, academic writing and action research necessitates collective public dialogue(Coulter 2002). Public dialogue enables the creation of unique identities and the dis-covery of new possibilities for future actions. Coulter, for example, illustrated theseconcepts as he explained how teaching poetry to students provided opportunity forthe students to engage in discussions with him and with their peers in ways thatinfluenced creativity and changed actions:

Each of us brought something different to the class, to our writing, and our discus-sions about writing. We had had different experiences, different talents, and differentpurposes for our writing … Our talk would go in unexpected directions (in my bestclasses). Someone would add a new perspective, an unforeseen connection and thatwould take us into new territory. Someone else might share his or her writing, and thatwould lead us into new writing. Someone would describe a difficulty and that, too,would take us into new discussions. The actual writing might have been individualwork, but we acted together. (Coulter 2002, 201)

Individual and collective development occurs when individuals are equal enough tocommunicate with one another, yet different enough for communication to beworthwhile (Coulter 2002).

Academics participate in research communities (Kuhn 1996). Written productsare the currency academics use to transact in the world and to engage in collectivedialogue (Coylar 2009), and scholarly writing represents a valued contribution tothe knowledge base and to the work of scientific communities. As emerging schol-ars, doctoral students are expected to become: ‘scholars who [not only] imagina-tively generate new knowledge and critically conserve valuable ideas – but alsotransform those new understandings through writing … and publication’ (Kamler2008, 292).

For my action research project, I was initially motivated to improve my writ-ing to prepare for success in academic endeavors – not to engage in a noble, evo-lutionary, emancipatory process. My vision of action research was limited andinstrumental. I focused on improving my writing so that I could establish myselfas a credible academic. At first, my focus was entirely on ends, and I expectedthat by completing the project I would be able to identify means for becomingproficient at academic writing. Fortunately, my views broadened.

410 N. Carter

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f K

iel]

at 0

4:30

26

Oct

ober

201

4

Planning the intervention

To determine how to improve my writing, I reviewed literature on graduate-levelwriting. Research indicates that graduate students improve writing ability throughfocused practice and analysis, and by soliciting and responding to feedback fromothers. Specifically, graduate students improve writing by: increasing the intensityof practice and writing on a schedule with demands (Caffarella and Barnett 2000;Wadsworth, Upton, and Halfman 2002); participating in peer review groups(Aitchison and Lee 2006; Ferguson 2009); analyzing research articles to evaluatehow other researchers frame arguments (Ferguson 2009); co-authoring articles withfaculty advisors (Kamler 2008); and soliciting and responding to faculty feedback(Caffarella and Barnett 2000).

For this project, I hoped that by focusing on my development as a writer Iwould also develop writing expertise. To better understand how expertise develops,I read The Talent Code: Greatness Isn’t Born. It’s Grown (Coyle 2009). Accordingto Coyle, key factors that facilitate the development of expertise are personal moti-vation; focused, intense practice in the area of interest; and studying with masterteachers who understand learning processes. Ross (2006) reported that effortfulstudy ‘which entails tackling challenges that lie just beyond one’s competence’ mat-ters more in developing expertise than acquiring experience. Continually solvingproblems at new and more complex levels also contributes to the development ofexpertise (Bereiter and Scardamalia 1993).

After reading about the development of expertise, I determined that focused,consistent practice was important for improving my writing and that practiceactivities should be challenging. Because I have experienced difficulty incorpo-rating theory in arguments and developing arguments about new academictopics, I therefore decided that practice should center on formulating academicarguments.

Intervention plan

Considering my reflections and the literature reviewed for my action research pro-ject, I developed an intervention plan. The plan included: reading a chapter a weekfrom For Argument’s Sake (Mayberry 2004) and writing notes about the chaptersread to better understand the mechanics of formulating arguments; critiquing argu-ments from To the Point (Muller and Wiener 2009) to gain insight into how othersdevelop arguments; practicing writing at least one academic argument per weekabout topics read for applied and focused practice; incorporating theory into myarguments to practice framing arguments with theory; and keeping a journal of writ-ing experiences and processes for ongoing reflection.

This plan included writing one academic argument per week. While I wasenrolled in the action research class, I was also enrolled in Best Practices inTeacher Education. Dr Bullough, the instructor for the course, assigned weeklyreadings. The readings reflected opposing views for topics covered such asteacher research, value-added modeling, and professional development. In con-junction with the course readings, the professor required students to writeresponses to the reading assignments. The professor did not specify the structureof the responses and only requested that students respond to ideas presented inthe articles read.

Educational Action Research 411

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f K

iel]

at 0

4:30

26

Oct

ober

201

4

Because I wanted to practice writing arguments, I opted to use the assignmentsas the focused practice element of my intervention plan. I informed Dr Bulloughabout my action research project and asked him to provide feedback on my writing.I expected to incorporate his feedback into weekly responses.

Implementation and evaluation

By the third week of the semester, I implemented my action research plan. I wrotepapers each week, read chapters from Mayberry’s book, wrote notes on chaptersread, reflected on writing processes, and analyzed published arguments. I kept com-puter files of written arguments and notes, and also kept graded papers with Dr Bul-lough’s comments.

For this project, evaluation was not a separate phase of the project; rather, itwas an ongoing process – I evaluated as I acted, and my reflections were evalua-tive. From the start of the project, I was somewhat dissatisfied with my approachfor writing. I wrote the following:

Week 1. In writing my response, a couple of things bothered me. First, my planning. Idon’t tend to plan what I write before I write it. Thoughts emerge as I write, whichcan be good or bad. In letting thoughts emerge, I’m not clear about what my point is,and risk not making my point. I haven’t known how to address the problem because itdoesn’t work for me to create outlines and work from an outline as I write.

Despite being dissatisfied with my writing processes, over the course of the pro-ject I did not make significant changes to how I approached writing the papers. Asfar as feedback received from Dr Bullough was concerned, on my first paper hesaid that I wrote clearly and well. For my second paper he thought my responsemeandered a bit and was not focused. However, subsequent responses were morefocused and on one paper Dr Bullough stated: ‘Reading your papers is one of thefew professional development activities I enjoy.’

From the outset of the project, Dr Bullough was satisfied with my work andassigned high marks on my papers. Although Dr Bullough’s feedback was positiveand affirming, the feedback was not instructive for refining my writing ability. Asthe project progressed I realized that I needed specific criteria for judging my work.During the second week in February, I developed a checklist to track writing pro-cesses and to assess whether I was applying my learning (Figure 1). I used thechecklist to evaluate my work.

In addition to incorporating the checklist as part of my intervention plan, Iadjusted my approach for analyzing articles. Initially, I planned to analyze argu-ments included in For Argument’s Sake and To the Point. However, after readingand evaluating arguments in both books I determined that studying non-academicarguments was not helpful. During the first week in February I selected academicarguments to review as part of my intervention. The selected articles were readingsfrom the teacher development class and articles from the special education journalsExceptional Children and Teacher Education and Special Education.

To better understand writing processes, I read chapters from three additionalbooks about writing. Mayberry’s book focused on aspects of argumentation and didnot specifically address style, organization, and structure for academic arguments. Iread Trimble’s (1975) Writing with Style: Conversations on the Art of Writing, sev-eral chapters of Style: Ten Lessons in Clarity and Grace (Williams 2003), and three

412 N. Carter

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f K

iel]

at 0

4:30

26

Oct

ober

201

4

chapters (Chapters 3–5) in The Literature Review (Machi and McEvoy 2009) tobecome more informed about writing style and processes, and to better understandhow to approach academic writing.

During the course of the study, I wrote 10 four-page papers for the teacherdevelopment class. In terms of my performance on my weekly writing assignments,my performance did not change during the course of the project. I received twoscores of 4.5 (out of five) and eight scores of five on papers. One of the 4.5 scoreswas on my second paper and the second 4.5 score was on my ninth paper.Although my performance did not change significantly, I gained a greater under-standing of writing and research processes, and recognized how academic writingcan be perceived as a form of action research. In the following sections I describewhat I learned about writing processes and academic writing, and then I discusshow the content of my papers illustrates how academic writing is a form of actionresearch.

As stated, I did not perceive that the quality of my writing changed significantlyduring the time that I conducted the research. Expecting my writing to change sig-nificantly was probably not a reasonable expectation. Instead, the most significant

Figure 1. Writing checklist.

Educational Action Research 413

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f K

iel]

at 0

4:30

26

Oct

ober

201

4

results were developing good writing habits and learning how to formulate aca-demic arguments. In weekly papers I did not merely reflect on course readings, Ipurposefully developed academic arguments.

What I learned about writing on demand

Increasing the intensity of practice and writing on schedule improve academic writ-ing (Caffarella and Barnett 2000; Wadsworth et al. 2002). For the present study, Iwrote papers every week. In writing responses, I scheduled a specific time eachweek to write – Friday afternoons from about noon to 5:00 p.m. The amount oftime it took to write my responses varied across the term. I spent two hours writinga first-draft of Response Number 7, and over six hours on the draft of ResponseNumber 10. The responses were due on Wednesdays. I planned to write theresponses on Fridays so that I would have time to review and revise my responses.For all responses, I made revisions before turning them in. Typically, I spent aboutan hour per paper on revisions. All of my papers were turned in on time.

Even though I scheduled time to write, I did not always feel like writing duringscheduled time. In fact, when I planned to write Response Number 10 I developeda migraine. However, because I had committed to writing during that time, I didmy best to get something on paper. Kathleen Lane (2010) (an influential researcherin the field of special education) recommended scheduling writing time and settinggoals for output, such as a page a day. She recommended focusing on output ratherthan on time spent writing to ensure productivity.

Although I did not feel well on that occasion, I forced myself to write a page ofthe response. I did not think the writing was good, but I stayed on schedule. Profes-sional writers often develop schedules and rituals for writing and plan time to write(Goor and Kolpin 2010; Kellogg 2006). Regulating writing behavior (i.e. settinggoals for writing, and planning and budgeting time to write) enhances writers’productivity (Zimmerman and Risemberg 1997).

Staying on schedule was one aspect of writing on demand. Another was stayingmotivated when writing was difficult. Some responses were easier to write than oth-ers, and consequently I experienced differing levels of frustration as I wrote weeklyarguments. For the most part, I was not unduly frustrated writing papers. That is, inwriting the weekly papers I generally perceived that I was able to achieve my goalsfor the papers (i.e. writing well-written arguments about topics covered in coursereadings), and I did not experience significant difficulty achieving internal goals.Most of my ratings for levels of frustration were scores of two or three (low or nor-mal levels of frustration). A few ratings indicated very little frustration (scores ofone – writing flowed easily and I felt confident writing), and for two responses Imarked higher levels of frustration (scores of four on a scale of one to five, withfive being frustrating), indicating that I encountered challenges in meeting personalobjectives for the papers.

Most writers encounter emotional ups and downs (Kellogg 2006), and frustrationis not uncommon when writing demands exceed one’s capacity. Managing emotionsand adopting strategies for coping with frustration are critical for maintaining produc-tivity (Kellogg 2006). Strategies I adopted were identifying emotions and the sourcesof frustration, and maintaining high expectations. When I experienced frustrationwriting, I realized that I had not identified a central argument and my writing was notclear. I would then focus on clarifying my thinking. Understanding the source of my

414 N. Carter

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f K

iel]

at 0

4:30

26

Oct

ober

201

4

frustration helped me work through difficulties in developing arguments for myweekly papers. Additionally, despite encountered challenges meeting my goals, I didnot abandon my objectives or alter my expectations for written work. I worked onpapers until I determined that my responses were as well formulated as they could beconsidering my knowledge of topics discussed. ‘The point [in writing] is not to erasedifficult emotions from writing but to find in them their productive potential ratherthan paralysis’ (Cameron, Nairn, and Higgins 2009, 274).

What I learned about formulating arguments

Academic writing involves formulating arguments to support positions and to justifyresearch. To learn about arguments I read chapters in For Argument’s Sake (May-berry 2004) as well as chapters in other writing books (Machi and McEvoy 2009;Trimble 1975; Williams 2003). From these books, I learned that arguments tend tobe factual, causal, and evaluative. Arguments are developed to make recommenda-tions for future actions. To support claims made in arguments, writers make com-parisons, appeal to authority, and address counter-arguments (Machi and McEvoy2009). Defining terms used in arguments provides clarity for what is being dis-cussed, and definitions can be descriptive, functional, comparisons, examples, andhistorical discussions of terms (Mayberry 2004).

In critiquing published articles I evaluated the type of arguments made, and ana-lyzed evidence to determine whether the evidence presented strengthened or weak-ened the claims made. For example, when I read Darling-Hammond’s (2010) articleon the future of teacher education, I noted the following about evidence supportingher argument when I discussed her article in my weekly paper:

Some of Darling-Hammond’s suggestions for restructured teacher education programsare based on comparing medical training programs and teacher education. In makingsuch a comparison Darling-Hammond is not comparing programs of the same scale.In 2008, approximately 16,167 students graduated from medical schools in the U.S.,whereas, approximately 200,000 new candidates were served in teacher preparationprograms.

As I read and analyzed the arguments presented in academic articles, I learnedabout facets of good arguments and applied this learning to my writing. In all of myresponses, I included definitions of terms, addressed counter-arguments, and citedprominent authorities. For example, in my third paper, I defined ‘response to inter-vention’ (RTI) as a ‘data-based decision making process that utilizes tiers of evi-dence-based instruction for addressing students’ instructional needs’. In discussingRTI, I reviewed the pros and cons of the approach (i.e. it appears to help strugglinglearners improve academically, but may create problems when used to qualify stu-dents for special education services), and I cited top researchers in special education(Fuchs and Deshler), reading specialists (Kavale and Shaywitz), and laws that specifyeducational practices (Individuals with Disabilities Education Act 2004) to supportmy position.

What I learned about the place of personal experience in constructing arguments

For the present study, my initial research questions focused on my ability to developacademic arguments. In all of my papers, I purposefully attended to conventions ofargumentation in discussing educational issues. In doing this I had not considered

Educational Action Research 415

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f K

iel]

at 0

4:30

26

Oct

ober

201

4

how my experience would influence my arguments. Through writing, I discoveredthat my experience was a source of evidence for arguments made and reflected author-itative personal knowledge about teaching and teacher education (Munby and Russell1994).

In analyzing the content of my weekly responses, my responses reflected myexperience and knowledge, and the integration of these factors with my academicwork. For example, the topic of one of my papers was teacher preparationprograms. In the introduction to that paper, I described my experience as a studentcompleting a licensure program. The following illustrates introducing the topic byreflecting on lived experience:

My son has learning disabilities. Because of my experience working with him andtutoring other children like him, I enrolled in the special education licensure programat the university. At the time that I completed the licensure program, the total numberof credit hours needed for licensure was 28. That number included student teachingcredit. Although I learned a great deal from my methods courses and field experiences,I felt that they were inadequate for preparing me to teach students with disabilities.Had I not had years of experience working one-to-one with my son and with otherstudents prior to enrolling in the program, I did not believe that I would have beenadequately trained to address students with disabilities’ instructional needs.

In the body of the paper I discussed different perspectives on teacher quality and howvarious training models may or may not be adequate for preparing teachers for class-room service. In the conclusion, I returned to my experience and related experience tothe theme of the paper:

Reflecting on the readings brings me back to my experience. My experience in mypreparation program could have been better. Fortunately, the special education depart-ment at the university reached the same conclusion and requirements and approachesfor training special educators are now more rigorous than when I completed the pro-gram in 2003. As the department continues to study its own practice, it is likely thatmore improvements will be made and special educators who complete the preparationprogram will be better qualified to teach students with special needs.

Improving preparation programs from within seems to me to be a better approach forimproving teacher education than completely restructuring education programs andexpecting governments (state, local, and the federal government) to assume responsi-bility for teacher preparation. Government control does not guarantee outcomes orquality. I believe renewal takes place from within, not from external controls.

Writing about my experience highlighted the authority of my experience (Munbyand Russell 1994). In relating personal experience, I demonstrated that my interac-tions with children with disabilities were instructive for learning about teaching. Byincluding personal experience in an academic paper I treated that experience as avalid source of evidence that strengthened my argument (Mayberry 2004).

What I learned about argumentation and advocacy

When I wrote responses, I was not cognizant that I advocated for individuals andinstitutions to own their development and advancement, and that I promoted free-dom from external controls. Those themes became apparent as I analyzed the datafrom the entire project. In discussing the pros and cons of accreditation and schoolinspection systems I addressed power and control in stating the following:

416 N. Carter

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f K

iel]

at 0

4:30

26

Oct

ober

201

4

School inspections highlight power differentials and inspectors control processes. Dur-ing the last 20 years a shift in education has occurred. Teachers have been stripped ofpower to manage their own teaching behavior, and power has become centralized ingovernment agencies. For example, with recent changes in UK inspection processes, itappears as though parents and students will have more of a voice in schoolevaluations than teachers (Office for Standards in Education 2009). The situation isinteresting because it fosters an adversarial relationship between schools/teachers andthe government (i.e., schools are the enemy that needs to be controlled), which seemsa bit perverse.

In another paper I discussed similar ideas. For the paper on teacher research, Iincorporated what I was learning about action research in my response and statedthe following:

In supporting research, a distinction should be made between supporting teachers andrequiring them to conduct research. Even though action research has the potential toreform educational practices and to bridge persistent gaps between research and prac-tice, policy makers and administrators must resist the temptation to enact policies thatcompel teachers to engage in research – a likely reality given the current emphasis oneducational reform and accountability. Making research compulsory ignores founda-tional principles of action research. ‘At its best, action research is a process thatexplicitly aims to educate those involved to develop their capacity for inquiry bothindividually and collectively’ (Reason and Bradbury 2006, 10). Research processesshould enable those with less power to recover power over experts (Gaventa andCornwall 2001) and to elevate their own practice.

What I learned about education by writing

For this research project, writing about educational issues allowed me to exploreinherent complexities in education. Each week as I wrote a paper for Dr Bullough’sclass, I considered the arguments and counter-arguments presented in the papers thatI read. Writing about opposing perspectives helped me realize that solvingeducational problems is immensely complex. Zimmerman, Lindberg, and Plsek(1998) defined complex situations as situations in which answers to problems are notknown at the outset and there is little agreement among stakeholders as to whatshould be done. In education, problems are challenging, there is often little consensusamong stakeholders as to how to solve problems, and outcomes are often unpredict-able (Patton 2011). Berliner (2002) argued that no two educational contexts are thesame and factors that influence educational outcomes are multiplicative – withnumerous uncontrollable factors impacting a myriad of mediating and moderatingfactors.

In several of my papers I noted that the authors of the articles I read supportedrelatively simple solutions to complex problems. For example, promoting the ideasthat rigorous school inspections will ensure quality, that implementation of RTI willeffectively address learning difficulty, or that value-added modeling will increaseaccountability and improve school quality reduces educational complexities. Suchapproaches may produce positive effects or address targeted issues, but simplisticsolutions are unlikely to adequately address the complexities of educational issues.

Across many of my papers, I concluded that issues were complex and complexitymust be addressed when solving difficult problems. I stated the following about RTI:

For me, evaluating RTI is not as simple as saying it is good for general educationand questionable for special education. The issues are complex. Too many children

Educational Action Research 417

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f K

iel]

at 0

4:30

26

Oct

ober

201

4

have been left behind in education – particularly children who experience difficultylearning (Deshler et al. 2001). In special education, excluding slow learners fromreceiving services, and waiting until students have failed before educators interveneddid not make sense. The use of systematic approaches for addressing learning diffi-culty is better than allowing children to fail, or waiting for them to fail. However,implementing RTT is a not simple proposition. There is not one RTI model. Numer-ous models exist and have been implemented. Although RTI is presented as a sim-ple model, it is a complex process for identifying and responding to learningdifficulty. The implementation of RTI requires significant training and the use ofresources that may be scarce (time and money). Measurement issues that have pla-gued special education will continue to be issues in special education, and measure-ment problems will arise in general education. RTI is not an educational panacea.The dual perspective that RTI is both a qualifying procedure for special educationand reform for general education is interesting and problematic at the same time. Aunified approach for educating children makes sense, but issues for special education(eligibility determinations and the accuracy of diagnoses of disabling conditions) arenot the same as general education issues (educating all learners), and one approachwill not solve all problems for both disciplines.

Concluding thoughts

Action research and writing are essentially the same processes. Both involveaddressing a problem, planning, acting, evaluating, and sharing outcomes (Flowerand Hayes 1981; Heron and Reason 1997). Just as the action research cycle repre-sents an iterative cycle of action, cognitive writing theory identifies writing as itera-tive because writers generate goals, write, react to written texts, revise, reconsidergoals, write, and refine work before sharing with others (Flower and Hayes 1981).

Researching and writing cycles were integrated throughout this project. I acted towrite, and writing was action. As such, the project held practical validity. As I moveforward in my career, writing demands will increase, not abate: ‘Writing skills becomeeven more important after the successful completion of a doctoral program, not onlyfor those who remain in university settings but also for those who pursue professionaloccupations outside academe’ (Ferguson 2009, 286). This project held practical signif-icance for me as writing is currently a focus in my practice and will become centralto my practice when I obtain an academic position. For others, the product of myresearch (this report) provides opportunity for collective public dialogue.

For the present study, the integration of research and writing processes producedunanticipated outcomes. As I implemented the action research project, I hadexpected to develop academic writing expertise. Instead, engaging in research andwriting action allowed me to explore my perspective of educational issues. Readingacademic articles, reflecting on educational problems, writing for a specific audi-ence, and analyzing my writing helped me identify how my experience informedmy perspective of educational issues, and caused me to consider where I might finda place in academic discourse.

Prior experience shaped my perceptions of topics discussed, and in many casesprovided a framework for interpreting academic discourse. By deconstructing thework of others (i.e. reading the writings of academics), connecting what I read withpersonal experience, and then reconstructing by integrating experience and knowl-edge in writing, my academic perspective was shaped and refined. Academic writ-ing can provide space for individuals to make sense of the world because writing isa generative process by which writers make meaning, think, and develop whilewriting (Badley 2009; Coylar 2009).

418 N. Carter

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f K

iel]

at 0

4:30

26

Oct

ober

201

4

Writing creates space for academics to shape and re-shape themselves (Badley2009). My experience suggests that the space Dr Bullough created for responding toacademic arguments allowed me freedom to explore ideas in ways that I would havebeen constrained from doing had I been writing for the broader academic community.In writing weekly responses, I explored how my experience positioned me in relationto academic discussions and the process re-shaped my perception of myself and ofmy academic work. Scholars need space to pursue interests and to make contributionsto wider social debates without being constrained by distorting research restrictionssuch as the depersonalization of research, now in vogue in academic communities(Badley 2009).

When I began the action research project, I did not expect to argue against oppres-sive institutions or practices. And yet that became a theme in several of my papers. Inconducting this research, I was the researcher and the researched. Controlling researchand writing processes allowed me to consider what flourishing means to me and toexplore through writing how I could promote the well-being of others (Reason andBradbury 2006). As Badley suggests, I shed the pretense of being a dis-interestedpursuer of truth and promoted freedom: ‘I want [academic writers] to be so interested –in democracy, freedom, justice, tolerance – that we take sides by shaping ouracademic writing and our socio-political actions in favor of justice and againstoppression’ (Winter and Badley 2007, 218). My experience indicates that acting andwriting are liberating activities that can allow expression of commitment to humandevelopment, well-being, and freedom.

In education, academics must fully embrace the complexity of education.Increasingly, political pressures mount for support of all-or-nothing solutions, andfor simplistic solutions to difficult problems (e.g. increase accountability in schoolsto produce better educational outcomes). Schwandt cautioned against such thinkingin stating the following:

This trend [toward simplifying complexities] is alarming because it shows an unwill-ingness to fashion solutions to problems in inevitably contingent and complex circum-stances … It is distressing because at least in the policy arena it is based on an overlysimplified view of the social order and a tendency to discount the capacity of citizensto create meaningful solutions to problems. (2008, 143)

The trend toward simplification is concerning, suggesting a lack of: ‘tolerance forambiguity that ignores the important fact that considerable variation in perspectivesis not simply inevitable, but actually productive of new ways of thinking’(Schwandt 2008, 143).

As I conclude this paper I realize that my perception of academic writing haschanged and broadened. Conducting this research and writing about my experiencehave increased my capacity to act with determination. I have a sense of personalresourcefulness and confidence for addressing educational issues that I did not haveat the outset of the project. Although my development is personal, academic writingis an interaction with a community and creates a sense of responsibility – responsibil-ity for promoting open discussion, for safeguarding free expression, for supportinghuman development, and for upholding human dignity (Park 2001). I expect in thefuture that I will continue to address these issues. Writing will be developmental. AsI write and interact with members of academic communities,I will grow; and hope-fully, by conversing with me, others will expand their vision of academic work.

Educational Action Research 419

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f K

iel]

at 0

4:30

26

Oct

ober

201

4

AcknowledgementsThanks to Dr Robert Bullough Jr. for inspiring my thinking, and for graciously reviewingthis article and providing helpful feedback on a draft of the article. Thanks to Dr Roni JoDraper for teaching me about and coaching me on action research.

References

Aitchson, C., and A. Lee. 2006. Research writing: Problems and pedagogies. Teaching inHigher Education 11, no. 3: 265–78.

Badley, G. 2009. Academic writing as shaping and re-shaping. Teaching in HigherEducation 14, no. 2: 209–19.

Bereiter, C., and M. Scardamailia. 1993. Surpassing ourselves: An inquiry into the implica-tions of expertise. Chicago, IL: Open Court.

Berliner, D.C. 2002. Educational research – The hardest science of all. EducationalResearcher 31, no. 8: 18–20.

Boote, D.N., and P. Beile. 2005. Scholars before researchers: On the centrality of the disser-tation literature review in research preparation. Educational Researcher 34, no. 6: 3–15.

Bradbury, H., and P. Reason. 2003. Action research: An opportunity for revitalizing researchpurpose and practice. Qualitative Social Work 2, no. 2: 155–75.

Caffarella, R.S., and B.G. Barnett. 2000. Teaching doctoral students to become scholarlywriters: The importance of giving and receiving critiques. Studies in Higher Education25, no. 1: 39–52.

Cameron, J., K. Nairn, and J. Higgins. 2009. Demystifying academic writing: Reflections onemotions, know-how and academic identity. Journal of Geography in Higher Education33, no. 2: 269–84.

Carter, N., M.A. Prater, and T.T. Dyches. 2008. What every teacher should know about:Adaptations and accommodations for students with mild to moderate disabilities. Boston,MA: Allyn & Bacon.

Coulter, D. 2002. What counts as action in educational action research? Educational ActionResearch 10, no. 2: 189–206.

Coylar, J. 2009. Becoming writing, becoming writers. Qualitative Inquiry 15, no. 2: 421–36.Coyle, D. 2009. The talent code: Greatness isn’t born. It’s grown. Here’s how. New York:

Bantam.Darling-Hammond, L. 2010. Teacher education and the American future. Journal of Teacher

Education 61, no. 1: 35–47.Deshler, D., J.B. Schumaker, B.K. Lenz, J.A. Bulgren, M.F. Hock, J. Knight, and

B.J. Ehren. 2001. Ensuring content-area learning by secondary students with disabilities.Learning Disabilities Research and Practice 16, no. 2: 96–108.

Dewey, J. 1929. Sources of a science of education. New York, NY: Horace Liveright.Diezmann, C.M. 2005. Supervision and scholarly writing: Writing to learn – learning to

write. Reflective Practice 6, no. 4: 443–57.Dyches, T., N. Carter, and M.A. Prater. 2011. A teacher’s guide to communicating with parents:

Practical strategies for developing successful relationships. Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.Ferguson, T. 2009. The ‘write’ skills and more: A thesis writing group for doctoral students.

Journal of Geography in Higher Education 33, no. 2: 285–97.Flower, L., and J.R. Hayes. 1981. A cognitive process theory of writing. College

Composition and Communication 32, no. 4: 365–87.Gaventa, J., and A. Cornwall. 2001. Power and knowledge. In Handbook of action research,

ed. P. Reason and H. Bradbury, 72–82. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Goor, M., and T. Kolpin. 2010. Overcoming challenges that face new writers. In Publish,

flourish, and make a difference, ed. F. Obiakor, B. Algozzine, and F. Spooner, 47–59.Arlington, VA: Council for Exceptional Children.

Gustavsen, B. 2001. Theory and practice. The mediating discourse. In Handbook of actionresearch, ed. P. Reason and H. Bradbury, 17–26. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Harris, K. 2009. Conducting and publishing high quality research. Seminar conducted forthe Division of Research, Doctoral Student Scholars’ Seminar Council for ExceptionalChildren, Gainesville, FL.

420 N. Carter

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f K

iel]

at 0

4:30

26

Oct

ober

201

4

Heron, J., and P. Reason. 1997. A participatory inquiry paradigm. Qualitative Inquiry 3, no.3: 274–94.

Individuals with Disabilities Education Act. 2004. 20 U.S.C. § 1401–1485. Federal Law,Washington, DC.

Johnson, J.A., and B.C. DeSpain. 2004. Mentoring the reluctant writer. The ProfessionalEducator 26, no. 2: 45–55.

Kamler, B. 2008. Rethinking doctoral publication practices: Writing from and beyond thethesis. Studies in Higher Education 33, no. 3: 283–94.

Kellogg, R. 2006. Professional writing expertise. In The Cambridge handbook of expertiseand expert performance, ed. A. Ericcson, N. Charness, P. Feltovich, and R. Hoffman,389–402. Cambridge: New York.

Kiley, M. 2009. Identifying threshold concepts and proposing strategies to support doctoralcandidates. Innovations in Education and Teaching International 46, no. 3: 293–304.

Kuhn, T.S. 1996. The structure of scientific revolutions. 3rd ed. Chicago, IL: The Universityof Chicago Press.

Labaree, D.F. 2003. The peculiar problems of preparing educational researchers. EducationalResearcher 32, no. 4: 13–22.

Lane, K. 2010. Doctoral student scholars. Seminar presented at Council for ExceptionalChildren Division of Research Doctoral Student Seminar, Gainesville, FL.

Machi, L., and B. McEvoy. 2009. The literature review: Six steps to success. ThousandOaks, CA: Corwin.

Mayberry, K. 2004. For argument’s sake: A guide to writing effective arguments. 5th ed.New York, NY: Longman.

Muller, G.H., and H.S. Wiener. 2009. To the point: Reading and writing short arguments.New York, NY: Pearson Longman.

Munby, H., and T. Russell. 1994. The authority of experience in learning to teach: Messagesfrom a physics methods class. Journal of Teacher Education 45, no. 2: 86–95.

Office for Standards in Education. 2009. Conducting school inspections: Guidance for inspect-ing schools in England under section 5 of the Education Act 2005, from September 2009.http://www.ofsted.gov.uk/Ofsted-home/Forms-and-guidance/Browse-all-by/Other/General/Conducting-school-inspections-guidance-for-inspectors-of-schools-from-September-2009.

Patton, M.Q 2011. Developmental evaluation. New York, NY: Guilford.Park, P. 2001. Knowledge and participatory research. In Handbook of action research, ed.

P. Reason and H. Bradbury, 83–93. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Reason, P. 2006. Choice and quality in action research practice. Journal of Management

Inquiry 15, no. 2: 187–203.Reason, P., and H. Bradbury. 2006. Introduction: Inquiry and participation in search of a

world worthy of human aspiration. In Handbook of action research, ed. P. Reason andH. Bradbury, 1–15. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Ross, P.E. 2006. The expert mind. Scientific America. http://www.scientificamerica.com/arti-cle.efm?id=the-expert-mind & print=true.

Rueda, R., and L. Monzό. 2010. Being scholarly successful in the academy. In Publish,flourish, and make a difference, ed. F. Obiakor, B. Algozzine, and F. Spooner, 59–74.Arlington, VA: Council for Exceptional Children.

Schwandt, T.A. 2008. Educating for intelligent belief in evaluation. American Journal ofEvaluation 29, no. 2: 139–50.

Tomal, D.R. 2003. Action research for educators. Lanham, MD: Scarecrow Press.Trimble, J. 1975. Writing with style: Conversations on the art of writing. Englewood Cliffs,

NJ: Prentice-Hall.Wadsworth, J., T. Upton, and A. Halfman. 2002. Strategies to improve the writing of

graduate students. Rehabilitation Education 16, no. 2: 295–305.Williams, J. 2003. Style: Ten lessons in clarity and grace. 7th ed. New York, NY: Longman.Winter, R., and G. Badley. 2007. Action research and academic writing: A conversation.

Educational Action Research 15, no. 2: 253–70.Zimmerman, B., C. Lindberg, and P. Plsek. 1998. Edgeware: Insights from complexity ideas

for health care leaders. Irving: VHA.Zimmerman, B.J., and R. Risemberg. 1997. Becoming a self-regulated writer: A social

cognitive perspective. Contemporary Educational Psychology 22: 73–101.

Educational Action Research 421

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f K

iel]

at 0

4:30

26

Oct

ober

201

4