1. 1 Q: How can we know we are making a difference in the learners’ learning? A: Action Research Linda S. Adamson, Ed.D. September 1, 2011 Johns Hopkins University School of Education adamson@jhu.edu

2. Goal for this presentation: Develop an understanding of action research (AR) as an approach to improving: [ANY TEACHING SETTING:] teaching and learning with a systematic, pragmatic focus on improving learning in ways likely to yield positive results for learners. [NON-TEACHING SETTINGS:] any aspect of one’s own practice with a systematic, pragmatic focus on improving some important area in ways likely to yield positive results. 2

3. Participants will: Know: BRIEF history of AR Varity of aspects of AR in different settings How AR relates research to practice in teaching settings One research-supported model of AR Do: Describe how MEHP students have/could/will use AR [Evidence-Based Practice] to improve some aspect of their own practice. 3

4. 4 Clarifying our current context [A] The challenges: High-stakes accountability (international, national, state) for meeting standards across all types of learner groups in any and all settings Persistent (if slowly narrowing) achievement gaps Rapidly increasing diversity in learner populations High expectations of all instructors/teachers – in any context – to show results Greater effectiveness being required at all levels – with evidence, not just testimonials

5. Knowledge Base: Instructor Effectiveness [D] Qualifications (Darling-Hammond, 2000; NCLB citing Sanders & Rivers, 1996) “Highly qualified” status not credited with improving results (McMurrer, 2007) Personal characteristics (Getzels & Jackson, 1963; Good & Brophy, 1987; Stronge, 2007) Fairness, flexibility, enthusiasm for teaching & learning Teacher practices Process-product research (Brophy & Good, 1986) Reflection, teaching for understanding (Dewey, 1910; Good, 1996; Rodgers, 2002; Schulman, 2004) Categories of instructional strategies (Marzano, Pickering, & Pollock, 2001; Stronge, 2007) 5

6. Knowledge Base: Action Research [D] A practice that enhances professionalism, develops analytical capacities Dewey (1910) Lewin (1948) Corey (1953) Stenhouse (1983), Elliott, (1987, 2000), Kemmis & Di Chiro (1987), Whitehead & McNiff (2006) Noffke & Zeichner (1987) Reason & Bradbury (2006) Johnson (2007) 6

7. Action Research: a sampling Center for Collaborative Action Research at Pepperdine (2011) http://cadres.pepperdine.edu/ccar/about.html Family Care Journal (1999) http://fampra.oxfordjournals.org/content/16/3/305.abstract An Ethical Approach to Practitioner Research (2007) http://www.amazon.com/Ethical-Approach-Practitioner- Research- Dilemmas/dp/0415430879/ref=sr_1_2?s=books&ie=UT F8&qid=1314824175&sr=1-2 http://www.amazon.com/Ethical-Approach-Practitioner- Research- Dilemmas/dp/0415430879/ref=sr_1_2?s=books&ie=UT F8&qid=1314824175&sr=1-2 7

8. International applications Canada: University of Toronto (1998) http://www.web.net/~robrien/papers/arfinal.html New Zealand: Study http://www.eric.ed.gov/PDFS/ED447930.pdf Action Research in Developing Countries (2003): http://pdf.usaid.gov/pdf_docs/Pnacw413.pdf 8

9. And soon, a new site for sharing… Building on the past & into a new future at JHU School of Education http://education.jhu.edu/newhorizons 9

10. Action Research vs. Evidence-Based Teaching[D] Action Research (AR): No consensus among educators: Individual or collaborative? Lengthy (1+ years) or relatively brief (a few weeks)? Social justice? school improvement? teacher reflection? Shared with an audience? No common definition of “quality” components of AR No accepted way to show link, AR  results A different term: Evidence-Based Teaching (EBT) Avoids assumptions of different philosophies of AR Defines specific components & quality levels 10

11. Action Research/EBT: A pragmatic approach [E] A set of domains/components appropriate for selecting and delivering an intervention/change in practice to meet context-specific needs, using contextually appropriate evidence to define a need/problem, select the intervention, monitor progress, and analyze results. It is a highly reflective, iterative, dynamic process consisting of the 8 components represented by the Conceptual Framework. 11

12. Conceptual Framework [E]: 12

13. A Pragmatic 8-Component Process [E] A: Context (the setting), needs assessment, goal alignment (Contextualize learning; understand specific population; target important needs; contribute to whole-setting improvement) B: Question, hypothesis (Focus attention, articulate “theory of causation”) C: Baseline data/evidence (Triangulate evidence for greater understanding & accuracy; disaggregate in contextually meaningful groups for pattern-seeking) D: Sources for intervention selection (Build on practitioner’s knowledge) E: Implementation in context (Quality of intervention/change implementation) F: Formative data/evidence (Departure from standard methodologies: adapt to meet emergent needs; feedback for improved success, Black & Wiliam, 1998) G: Summative data/evidence (Multiple forms of appropriate evidence to support inferences, not “proof”) H: Interpretation, next steps (“Reflective conversation with the situation” Schön, 1992 – but also leading to change in the future) 13

14. Conclusions from Early Research 14 Set of 3 components predict levels of learners’ achievement (positive vs. negative/ indeterminate): Context, Needs, Goal Alignment; Intervention/Change Implementation; Formative Data/Evidence

15. Conclusions (continued) Component A: Context, Needs, Goal Alignment The importance of knowing the setting, the target population and their needs, and how to relate the two Component E: Intervention/Change in Practice Implementation The importance of making changes in current practice with attention to quality Component F: Formative Data/Evidence Collection The importance of gathering & using evidence of progress to shape further progress 15

16. Other contributions of AR School/Program Improvement Plans Track evidence of impact in order to adjust & improve, rather than just to document Focus on diverse learners’ learning in contextually appropriate ways High Quality Professional Development Meet requirement to relate professional development to evidence of impact on practices, especially end result. 16

17. AR in Health Professions Education Making the case for instructors’ ability to have a positive effect on learning. Enabling education programs to document instructors’ positive effect on learning in support of improvement priorities 17

18. Applying understanding of AR Describe how you …  Have used,  Could use, or  Will use … …an AR approach to improve some aspect of your own practice. 18

19. Questions? Follow-up? … 19