The Key Features of Action Research.

Action research (sometimes called practitioner research or action enquiry) is based around the de-

sire for individuals to improve their working practices. it is a continuous process of evaluation, re-

flection and improvement in all areas of their job to enhance it’s effectiveness and quality specifi-

cally within their own situation and potentially with implications for their sector as a whole. It is a

self initiated programme of enquiry based on the researcher’s own experiences, research and

ideas the results of which can not only improve their own immediate situation but can also affect in-

dustry practice at a higher level. It can be used on a small or large scale by anyone, learners in-

cluded, to experiment, review and improve any aspect of their work. (McNiff and Whitehead 2011).

Action research is both personal to the practitioner by means of improving practice and social in

that it aims to improve the situation in which learning takes place. (McNiff Lomax and Whithead

1996). As it is essentially a learning process this makes it especially relevant to education.

Action research looks fundamentally at small scale situations where possible improvements can be

made and taking action to try to do so. By experimenting with varying techniques and studying their

effectiveness changes can be made to improve process and practice. (Petty 2004). The model for

this is called the Action Research Cycle. Various versions have been developed such as those

suggested by Kolb and Gibbs and they initially consist of a process of planning (what methods will

be tried), implementation (carrying out those methods), reflection and evaluation (seeing what hap-

pens), and using those results to amend or refine the plan for the next time. (Rolfe et al. 2001).

Thus the cycle takes the form of a continuing spiral with, hopefully, a continuous process of im-

provement in quality of provision. (Lewin 1946). For myself in particular with a view to teaching Art

and Design it will be a method of professional development which not only benefits the learners I

am involved with but also be personally fulfilling for myself as I improve the effectiveness of my

own practice and methodology. (Pollard 2005).

For and against.

One of the benefits of action research is that it begins with a study of small scale situations and in-

teractions and this small sample can be used to suggest changes on a larger scale. (Koshy 2010).

With regard to education it allows teaching practice and it’s effects to be evaluated and improved

by teachers from the ground up. A good example is Geoff Petty’s action research at Sutton Cold-

field College. Here he advocates various methods for data collection including tests, quizzes and

proformas. I will be employing these in my own research. This approach somewhat conflicts with

the traditionalists who advocate the primacy of reproduction of knowledge content in line with the

product model. (Elliott 1991). In collaboration with similar studies this early research culture can be

particularly beneficial within fledgling institutions. The value of this method has been criticised as

being too subjective and anecdotal for any observations to be relevant to the larger situation with

the research being carried out by those with a vested interest fostering bias. (Greenwood & Levin

2007). It has also been labelled as unscientific by those with a positivist approach who see only the

value of empirical evidence. However within the Art and Design sector empirical evidence is hard

to identify. Art and Design is a largely interpretivist discipline and the mindset and learning styles of

individuals with an aptitude for the Arts tend to be based more on inspiration and spontaneity. It is

therefore very difficult, if not impossible, to build a methodology based on empirical evidence. Un-

like the sciences there is no one correct answer to a problem, there are no universal truths; out-

comes and solutions are negotiable. This corresponds with my own ontological view that research

outcomes (in this case interpretive) must be qualitative rather than just quantitative. A remote eval-

uated positivist approach to defining a methodology is entirely inappropriate and potentially damag-

ing especially when carried out by agencies with a positivist agenda outside the sector. (Cohen

and Morrison 2011).

It seems obvious to me that experts within any specialism are best placed to test and propose best

practice. (Stenhouse 1983). The drawback to this being it can lead to questioning the status quo

and anti-bureaucratic - necessary to the artistic mindset. However it can lead to students ability to

‘wake up’ to their own learning needs and the reality of the learning environment they have been

put in. (Koshy 2010). This may be administratively and politically inconvenient but in the arts sector

this comes with the territory.

Introduction.

My action research project was to examine and record the learners’ depth of understanding of the

module topic. I employed various methods such as teacher presentations, teacher led classroom

discussions and practical workshops to make formative assessments. By analysing the results of

these I aimed to look at improvements that can be made these strategies and perhaps identify new

ones. I wanted not only aim to improve my delivery and the content of the technical aspects in-

volved but also to put these in context, looking at the ‘why?’ as well as the ‘what?’ and the ‘how?’.

This holistic approach I believe is essential in the field of Art and Design in order that learners de-

velop a creative mindset as well as their practical skills and this is reflected in the project brief I

was to deliver. This would mean discovering ways to engage and motivate the learners on order

that they learn to question and investigate not only what they are being asked to do in class but

also their own skills, aptitudes, strengths, weaknesses and approaches to problem solving. I also

wanted to identify ways to gauge and assess the results with a view to further modification and im-

provement which may benefit not only my own group but potentially the sector as a whole. I hoped

to develop an effective methodology by means of the identification and testing of a variety of meth-

ods based on research, my own ideas and collaboration with colleagues.

The group.

The group I would be working with was very small consisting of just four individuals. The focus of

the module was to know and understand the different applications of photography, to be able to de-

velop creative ideas based on a given brief, how to use and employ photographic equipment and

techniques appropriately and be able to reflect and evaluate project outcomes.

My action plan.

With the above considerations in mind I was able to refine what I wanted to achieve in a single

statement:

‘I want to develop my ability to improve and monitor learners’ depth of understanding of module

topic.’

The value I wanted to promote was their creative and practical skills through an in depth under-

standing of the lesson content. This fundamental ability is crucial to their success in the

sector.

Realisation. Why am I concerned?

My evidence is based on quite limited observations of students I have been teaching so far during

my placement. Despite this I believe that this is basis enough to investigate solutions. (Kemmis

and McTaggert 1981). I have had previous experience of teaching level five students who were

reasonably enthusiastic and motivated with a general willingness to contribute during open tutorials

and group workshops. At level three this I noticed that this willingness to engage was much re-

duced and in some instances almost entirely absent. The learners tended to reflect a much more

schoolroom attitude with little response even to direct questioning. This not only made it difficult for

me to maintain the flow of a lesson but also to make any formative assessment during class activi-

ties. On the part of the students the lack of interaction, whether they were afraid of giving the

wrong answer in front of their peers or simply a desire to get the class over with, robbed them of

the ability to undertake any meaningful self assessment of their own topic understanding and learn-

ing by collaboration with their peers.

An example of this was during my first session with a level three Apprenticeship group studying ba-

sic photography. There was an immediate assumption by the students that the lesson would centre

on the use of computers and software packages from the outset and this was the absolute crux of

my concern. Although computers would inevitably be employed at a later stage it was my initial in-

tention to develop a studio dynamic by encouraging the group interaction and cooperation which

they will encounter later in their careers in the design industry. These learners were brought up in a

world of computers and the internet. It was what they were comfortable with and what they enjoyed

and taking them out of their comfort zone would have motivational issues. However it was impor-

tant to break down these preconceptions and highlight the importance of teamwork to balance out

the isolating influences of working at a computer station. Based on my own experience I believe

that an effective way to do this is for learners to make themselves aware of what is involved and

what they do and do not understand by writing down what they perceive the situation to be and

then discussing their answers. In this instance the group was a small one and so it was possible to

assess each learner individually allowing me to address their concerns more effectively. The infor-

mation gained would then suggest methods which I might employ to perhaps build up a more gen-

eral methodology relevant to the sector as a whole.

Additionally I have observed that there is a tendency, due to time and financial factors, toward rou-

tine action in design teaching and the belief that technology will solve everything which can dan-

gerously reinforce my previous observation. A major part of my action research was obviously to

combat this. (Dewey, 1933). In design subjects I believe in the gestalt benefits of collaboration dur-

ing project work leading to deeper understanding, particularly during the early stages. This ability to

communicate and interact will also be of benefit to them in their later careers. It also makes forma-

tive assessment by me and by the learners themselves much easier. I wanted to find teaching

methods which will facilitate this.

At this point I feel it is appropriate to touch briefly on the teaching / learning environment. the class-

room where nearly all of the group activities were based was essentially a computer room. There

are around a dozen computers and other hardware all around the walls as well as in the centre of

the room. This served to enhance the learners’ perception of how the lesson would be conducted

and it’s content. This caused an immediate difficulty for me as I wished to create an environment

appropriate to creative learning as previously outlined. All the work stations face the walls creating

a non-communicative and sterile environment instead of the relaxed, group centred dynamic con-

ducive to the development of a creative mindset. However there was a small well equipped photo-

graphic studio available which would be useful for practical activities.

Ethics.

Of course it is important to consider any negative impact on learning any proposed changes may

make to the existing format. As part of my continuing personal development it is desirable to con-

sider my own personal beliefs and values and introduce them into my lesson content. Action re-

search is an ideal opportunity to do this. However if it is going to do any good I need to ensure that

sufficient examination of the viability and relevance of these changes has been made first and that

the reasoning behind them is balanced and un-biased. Bias has been cited as one of the draw-

backs of action research and so colleague feedback on proposed changes prior to implementation

would be beneficial. It would also highlight any adverse impact on the course curriculum. For the

learners themselves proposed changes need to make sure that there is no undue disruption to

their learning such as changes to venue, timetable and access to resources. For the purposes of

my reflection on my methods used and data collected during usual classroom activities I believe, in

this case, it was not necessary for me to declare the action research content involved to the learn-

ers unless I intended to include personal information, such as names of participants or any other

sensitive data, in any results shared with colleagues or other bodies. This said, undue secrecy can

lead to procedural difficulties later on when sharing or publishing data so transparency of intentions

at the outset is usually preferable unless disclosure is likely to affect learners’ performance and

therefore the data gathered. (McNiff, Lomax and Whithead 1996).

Where it is deemed necessary full notice of my intentions and methods used would be declared

prior to commencement. These would focus on respect, equality and autonomy of the participants.

It would take the form of a contract drawn up in a form ensuring that it is clearly understood by

those participating, fully stating the motives and reasoning for the research and the parameters

within which it is to be used including who will see it, how it will be used and the duration of it’s rel-

evancy. Full disclosure of the laws governing it’s use would also be made. Confidentially is para-

mount and any potential risk would need to be clearly stated. Truthfulness and moral usage of in-

formation gathered would underpin the entire process. Ultimately each participant would have the

right to refuse to take part or withdraw at any time during the research process. The data gathered

and the means of collecting and using it would be in compliance with the UK Data Protection Act,

1998, the Human Rights Act, 1998 and the Bradford College Research Ethics Policy 2013. (BERA

2014).

The Brief.

The brief was to conceive, plan, produce, present and evaluate between four and eight images en-

titled ‘Street Gallery’. The first few sessions of the module were based largely around the practical

aspects of the photographic equipment they would be using. A basic knowledge of DSLR cameras

and the effects available would be core to the planning and progress of their individual projects. I

introduced this content with the aid of handouts, examples and powerpoint presentations. These

teacher led sessions took the form of open discussions. I was keen that the students became ac-

tively involved at an early stage and an informal tone was achieved to allow the students to feel re-

laxed and able to ask questions and contribute confidently. Developing this ‘studio dynamic’ would

allow me to gauge not only their initial level of understanding but also their individual characters

and learning styles. As mentioned previously a school classroom attitude was very prevalent. The

students still felt they were here because they had to be not because they wanted to be and atten-

tion was cursory. Any responses had to be coaxed from the learners by means of my directly tar-

geting individuals with questions. This gave me my first opportunity to test the effectiveness of the

content had used so far.

Methods.

I have tried to make the techniques I use fit the SMART criteria, (specific, measurable, attainable,

relevant, timely). My action research cycle is based on Kolb’s cycle of experiential learning. (Kolb

1984) and will be follow Seedhouse’s Ethical Grid. (Seedhouse 1998).

Method 1 - a quiz.

I devised a quiz covering the fundamentals of camera operations and techniques we had looked at

so far. This seemed to me to be a good way to cover the requirements of SMART learning. It would

be based on specific aspects of what had been covered so far and so was both directly relevant

and attainable. This was also a good time in the module to assess the progress und understanding

of the learners before continuing on to more advanced content. The results could also be mea-

sured and compared. The quiz was a short one of only sixteen questions. In order that my assess-

ment of their understanding showed clear results each question took the form of multiple choice.

The questions were based around which settings would have been used to take image examples

given, which settings students would choose to create certain effects and basic camera function.

Only three of the students were present to take the quiz so although the small sample was limited

with a view to indicating a general trend it allowed an accurate assessment of each individual. For

the purposes of this illustration I have converted the results into percentages,

technical (how the camera works) and application (how it could be used). These are shown in

charts A and B below.

The results illustrate the individual level of understanding of each student and the effectiveness of

the sessions so far. I have shown the average but this is of limited usefulness as the sample group

is so small. Interestingly, student A had the lowest overall score but was the only one with previous

experience of using DSLR equipment. I must mention here that according to documentation none

of my learners had any disabilities or learning difficulties so no initial allowances were necessary.

During the quiz I was careful to seat the students in such a way that there was no possibility of

copying or covert cooperation. The quiz was presented using powerpoint showing the questions

and accompanying illustrations and I read out each question as it arose. Afterward I asked the stu-

dents to pass their answer sheet to the person on their right on order that the marking was carried

out by one of their peers. This meant that they would be able to see each others answers - a delib-

erate ploy to encourage group involvement. We went through each answer in turn discussing the

answers as we went. Before giving the correct answer I asked the students to identify which it was

and explain why. In the case of nobody volunteering an answer I asked each student their opinion.

I would then give the answer (or answers) to each question with an explanation and allowing an

opportunity to ask questions.

Reflection on quiz 1.

Teaching a relatively short module with both creative and practical content to a group of generally

uncommunicative students was always going to be a challenge. Quiz 1 was good from a summa-

tive point of view as it showed clearly the level of understanding of each learner allowing me to

adapt future lesson content appropriately. It was also useful for the students as it highlighted their

own strengths and weaknesses which was important particularly with a group as remote as this

one. I think the most valuable part was the open discussion of the answers with every student be-

ing allowed to, or encouraged to, participate. This helped develop leaners’ self-actualisation with

team working and learners supporting and learning from each other. This is one of the major moti-

vators described in Maslow’s hierarchy. (Maslow 1954).

Upon reflection the downside to this exercise was that the diversity and number of questions was

rather too limited. A greater number of questions targeted on a more varied range of disciplines

would have given a more specific amount of assessable data from which to draw conclusions. It

was my intention to carry out this exercise again toward the end of the module in a modified form

after consultation with colleagues. Prior to this I will also be conducting group and individual tutori-

als with my students to include their feedback on the methods I have used so far and on the quiz in

particular.

Method 2 - pro forma survey.

For session five of the module I devised a survey to more specifically identify the current level of

student understanding of the content so far. This took the form of a pro forma. I wanted to obtain a

more detailed view of where the weaknesses were. To do this I divided the form into three sec-

tions; camera anatomy, shooting modes and terminology. This would allow me to further see which

areas required further emphasis both with regard to individual students and the whole group allow-

ing me to gain insight into individual learning styles so that I could plan and adapt lesson content

accordingly. It also allowed me to tailor the planned follow-up one-to-one tutorials to the needs of

each learner allowing me to develop empathy with them and facilitating frank, informal feedback on

my methods so far. The charts below again illustrate the results as a percentage.

Quiz 2. (2nd cycle).

Quiz 2 was based on the method and results of Quiz 1 and the pro forma. I stayed with the multiple

choice format but made the questions more genre specific to help address gaps in learning and

also the depth of learning highlighted by quiz one and the pro forma. I also increased the number

of questions to thirty to get a more detailed and accurate sample which I think worked.

Reflection on Quiz 2.

After observation it was noted that due to the increased number of questions and the repetitive-

ness of question type it became rather boring and had a negative impact on attention and motiva-

tion. Colleague feedback has suggested that the multiple choice format, although good for record-

ing what learners know, does not illustrate their ability to analyse and apply that knowledge by

also giving them the opportunity to show how it is used and why. A more eclectic range of ques-

tions, to include varied analytical skills and activities, would have produced a more entertaining and

dynamic session with students participation in more ‘learning by doing’. (Gibbs 1988). This would

also have given the opportunity for converting knowledge and understanding of content into appli-

cation as recommend by Bloom’s taxonomy thus encouraging the synthesis of new ideas which is

at the core of creative thinking. (Bloom 1969). The results of the quiz did show a reasonable im-

provement in depth of understanding of topic.

With regard to my own involvement it was observed that my input was much greater than was ideal

with me having to put a lot of effort into the engaging the students particularly during the initial

question session. This I believe was due to two demotivating factors; the general layout of the

classroom and the positioning of the learners. As the surfaces available for writing were positioned

facing the walls all the students had their backs to me and it was difficult to judge whether they

were ready to move on to the next question or even if they were answering them. It would be

preferable in future to seat the students where they could see both myself and the screen without

turning round, perhaps using a book as a writing surface. This would also have the benefit of them

knowing that I could see what they were doing.

I think part of the way forward for developing my own practice is to put more emphasis on observ-

ing my more experienced colleagues in action. Having spent many years working as a freelance

designer working alone I have always had to rely on my own methods and decisions. This isolating

influence has eroded my ability to work with others and even to trust their opinions. Feedback and

my own observations suggests that I don’t need to feel that I have to do everything myself. This is

relevant not only in working with colleagues but in the classroom as well. For future practice I need

to identify ways to let learners take some of the responsibility for their own learning and by what

methods that can best be achieved. I also need to become more aware of the available teaching

resources which are unfamiliar to me. Working as an individual in the past has meant that I have

focussed only on updating skills which are directly relevant to what I am doing and a much wider

set of skills will be required if I am to become an effective teacher.

Future proposals.

In general I think the quiz and pro forma worked reasonably well and would be worth repeating.

However after reflecting on the aforementioned observations I think it is time to take a step back

and assess what form any similar method might take in the future.

Firstly, I would try to ensure that the forthcoming activities took place in the correct environment.

Before any meaningful deep learning can take place the learners have to feel relaxed and comfort-

able. As previously mentioned the room I have been using was adequate but far from ideal. As this

was essentially a computer room it was primarily organised for private study. Although my class

was timetabled to use it there were several interruptions as students from other groups entered de-

spite a notice being placed on the door. This was an obvious distraction. However there is a gen-

eral ongoing disruption within the department at the moment as class bases are being reassigned

based, it appears, on purely administrative rather than educational concerns. Nevertheless in fu-

ture I would try to create a task-focussed team working environment even if it meant moving the

furniture. I am a firm believer in groups of students having ‘their space’ which they can mould and

identify with. From this secure base they can then look toward their own personal growth needs

and advance toward self actualisation and self transcendence which is, after all, why they are here.

(Maslow 1954).

The next thing to address would be to ensure that the contents adhered to SMART criteria. The

quizzes I set previously were mainly for summative purposes and data gathering and the content

was largely general. In future I think it would be appropriate to make the focus of subject matter

more specific in order to get more detailed data. This ‘bite sized’ approach would also allow learn-

ers the opportunity to gain a more qualitative understanding of lesson content through the following

open discussion of correct answers following the quiz. This would means smaller similar tests held

more often and at relevant intervals which would help to break up the lesson format and reduce the

monotony of the previous longer quiz and it’s negative impact on student motivation and engage-

ment. (Herzberg 1959).

Originally the content of the quiz focussed on mastery knowledge with particular attention to the

three main areas of camera anatomy, function and terminology. More frequent, smaller tests would

allow deeper investigation of earlier stage learning. Thus a more paced assessment of learners’

progress could be made with benefits toward future lesson planning. In longer modules this would

be more relevant than the one I was teaching which was rather a short one with less opportunity

for frequent testing but I believe for the sector as a whole the premise is sound.

The next important thing to consider would be the format. The powerpoint presentation worked well

as a basis. The multiple choice questions were also a valuable means of testing knowledge and

understanding but, in future, it is apparent that this would need to be only one of a number of op-

tions included. These, and also the pro forma, were purely cognitive in nature and a greater variety

of content such as practical workshops would not only enhance motivation but give a more effec-

tive opportunity for self learning. It would also give greater scope for a wider range of ‘medal and

mission’ activities; learners arriving at the correct answers by themselves is a good motivator.

(Petty, 2004). This would address the requirement for formative assessment as a learning tech-

nique, being the most effective form of learning by experience. (Gibbs 1989). This way the results

of the test as assessment for learning would become a form of assessment as learning both during

the test itself but also during examination of the answers. (Bloom 1969).

With this in mind the identification of individual learning styles at an early stage would be an impor-

tant factor. Purely theory based questions would suit the reflectors and theorists in the group but

the inclusion of psychomotor activities such as simple practical and investigative exercises would

include the activists and pragmatists as well. (Honey and Mumford 1992). This would be valuable

with a particularly large class where one-to-one teacher support would be limited. With regard to

my students, being few in number, this is less of an issue but good practice nonetheless and rele-

vant for use within the wider curriculum. (Scriven 1967).

(4,724 words.)

References.

Bloom, B.S. (1969) ’Some theoretical issues relating to educational evaluation’ in R.W. Tyler (Ed.)

Educational evaluation: new roles, new means: the 63rd yearbook of the National Society for the

Study of Education (part 2). University of Chicago Press.

Cohen, L., Manion, L. and Morrison, K. (2011) Research Methods in Education, (6th edn), London:

Routledge-Falmer.

Dewey, J. (1933) How We Think: a Restatement of the Relation of Reflective Thinking to the

Educative Process. Chicago: Henry Regency.

Elliott, J. (1991) Action Research for Educational Change. Milton Keynes: Open University Press.

Gibbs, G.(1989) Learning by Doing: A guide to teaching and learning methods. London: FEU.

Gibbs, G. (1988) Learning by Doing: A guide to Teaching and Learning Methods, Oxford: Further

Education Unit, Oxford Polytechnic.

Greenwood and Levin (2007) Introduction to Action Research: Social Research for Social Change,

London: Sage.

Griffiths, M and Davies, C. (1995) In Fairness to Children, London: David Fulton.

Hammersley, M. and Triainou, A.(2012) Ethics and Educational Research, British Educational Re-

search Association. [Online]. Available: https://www.bera.ac.uk/researchers-resources/publica-

tions/ethics-and-educational-research

Herzberg, F. (1959) The Motivation to Work. New York: Wiley.

Honey, P. and Mumford, A. (1992) The Manual of Learning Styles, London: Peter Honey.

Human Rights Act (1998) [Online]. Available: http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1998/29/contents

Kemmis, S. and McTaggert (1981) R.The Action Research Planner, 3rd edn. Victoria. Deakin

University

Kolb, D.A. (1984) Experiential Learning: Experience as the Source of Learning and Development,

New Jersey: Prentice-Hall.

Koshy, V. (2010) Action Research for Improving Educational Practice. 2nd edition. London: Sage.

Lewin, K. (1946) ‘Action Research and Minority Problems’. journal of social issues, 2 (4): 34-46.

Maslow, A. H. (1954) Motivation and Personality, New York. Harper.

McNiff, J. Lomax, L. and Whitehead, J. (1996) You and your Action Research Project. Abingdon:

RoutledgeFalmer.

McNiff, J. and Whitehead, J. (2011) ‘All You Need To Know About Action Research’. 2nd edition.

London: Sage.

Petty, G. (2004) Teaching Today. 3rd Ed. Bath: Nelson Thornes.

Pollard, A (2005) Reflective Teaching, London: Continuum.

Rolfe, G., Freshwater, D. & Jasper, M. (2001) Critical Reflection for Nursing and the Helping Pro-

fessions: A User's Guide. Basingstoke. Palgrave Macmillan.

Scriven, M. (1967) The Methodology of Evaluation, American Educational Research Association.

Seedhouse, D. (1998) Ethics at the heart of healthcare. New Jersey: Wiley Publishing.

Stenhouse, L. (1983) Authority, Education, and Emancipation. London: Heinemann.

Stutchbury, K. and Fox, A. (2009) ‘Ethics in Educational Research: introducing a methodical tool

for effective ethical analysis’, Cambridge Journal of Education, Vol.39, No. 4, pp. 489-504.

UK Data Protection Act (1998) [Online]. Available: http://www.belb.org.uk/Downloads/foi_data_pro-

tection_and_information_security.pdf