Teaching as Learning

An Action Research Approach

Jean McNiff

• Publisher: Routledge
• Year: 2006
• ISBN:
  9781134888474
• Edition: 1
• Topic: Pedagogía
• Subtopic: Educación general

In this fascinating and very personal book, Jean McNiff, author of the successful Action Research: Principles and Practice, argues that educational knowledge is created by individual teachers as they attempt to express their own values in their professional lives.
Working with case studies of actual practice, she looks again at the familiar action research paradigm of identifying a problem, imagining, implementing and evaluating a solution and modifying practice in the light of that evaluation. She gives practical advice on how working in this way can aid the professional development of action researcher and practitioner alike. She concludes that the best teaching is done by those who want to learn and who can show others how to be open to their own processes of self development.

PART I I EXPERIENCE A PROBLEM WHEN SOME OF MY EDUCATIONAL VALUES ARE DENIED IN MY PRACTICE

Chapter 1
The Professional Education of Teachers

The nub of the problem, as I see it, lies in the currently dominant approach to the initial and continuing education of teachers. There are certain assumptions in this approach that do not always see teachers at the centre of the educational enterprise. These assumptions need careful reconsideration and judicious replacement by another set of assumptions that put teachers in charge of their own learning and development.

I believe profoundly in the need for on-going education. I shall reiterate this belief throughout. What causes me concern is the way in which most teacher education is conducted. I am concerned about the methodology, including the assumptions (theories) which form and guide the methodology. It is high time for a new methodology and a new theory; for a new epistemology of practice.

In the last few decades there has been an evolution in patterns of teacher education in the UK. There has been a shift of emphasis in the control of education recently. There appears to be a tension between a centralised control of the curriculum and the devolution of power to individual schools through the local management of their finances.

Let me give a brief outline of the ways in which continuing teacher education has developed over recent years. I shall then put forward a new set of assumptions which could replace the old.

Two sections follow here. Both comment on the assumption that research is the basis for professional improvement. I shall suggest that there is a need for a shift in status and in focus. This shift expands a view of research as the basis for improved practice to a view of selfimproving practice as research.

Within the debate about the relationship between theory and practice, there are currently two somewhat polarised positions in the United Kingdom, two ‘visions of professional development’ (Elliott, 1989), which I shall term here ‘Theory into practice’ and ‘Practice into theory’.

1 Theory into practice

The dominant tradition for teacher education has been, and still is, a ‘line mangement’ approach in which an informed person offers guidance to teachers. This model usually operates through specific strategies which are intended to help a teacher to improve a particular educational situation.

STATUS

The status of research, in this view, is methodological; its focus is the practices of others. The nature of research is that it is conducted by an observer, who will offer the results to the practitioner.

Various strategies are used by the observer to make certain standards available. House et al (1989) have identified the five most common: (a) technical rationality; (b) study and prescribe; (c) practitioners as role models; (d) vicarious experience; (e) action research. I shall draw on their work here.

(a) Technical rationality

The assumption in this approach is that what works well in one situation will work equally well in another. I have identified this view (McNiff, 1988) as belonging to the empiricist-positivist tradition, and have critiqued it as resting on a mistaken interpretation of the creative nature of human potential. It is assumed that the methods of experimentation in the fields of botany, in which one variable is likened to another, may be transferred to the fields of human experience. It operates on an ‘if…, then…’ basis, with standardised input and output.

When applied to teacher education, it could be interpreted that what worked well in one educational setting will be successful in another. One set of teacher actions in one specific situation will produce similar results if another teacher acts in a similar fashion in another situation. Most of the literature of teacher education rests on this assumption.

I will accept that this approach is useful in many pedagogical situations: a standardised model of standardised actions will often provide like results in like situations. I cannot accept, however, that this is an appropriate foundation for the professional learning of teachers. Learning involves the evolution of understanding, and professional development involves considered reasons for action. All these aspects involve the critical reflection of individual teachers within their own context-specific situations.

The same criticism applies to strategies (b)–(e) that follow (House et al, 1989).

(b) Study and prescribe

This strategy requires someone to study what teachers do and prescribe ways in which the teachers might improve. Shavelson and Stern (1981) have collated such research, and have drawn up a possible taxonomy of teacher decisions and subsequent actions.

(c) Practitioners as role models

In this view, teachers are seen as the experts in their own classrooms. The best practices are held up as models to be emulated by colleagues. House et al (1989) cite the work of Scriven (1985), arguing that this view offers us a practical science of education, rather than a theoretical one.

The problem then arises, they go on to say, whether it is possible to abstract the significant features of good practice, and generalise from those; as well as the underlying problem of whether teachers ought to reformulate their own practice through emulating that of others.

(d) Vicarious experience

House et al consider the work of Stake (1985) in presenting case study material as the basis for others’ improvement. There is a danger in this interpretive case study approach that teachers will feel that they have to adapt what they are doing to the recounted practices of others. I have argued (McNiff, 1988, and below) that the way to improvement is not through trying to copy what other people do, but by the critical understanding of one’s own practice. Copying someone else does not move forward my own understanding of why I do as I do. It might make my immediate situation better, but, unless I understand why I am acting in the way that I am, I will not develop, personally or professionally.

(e) Action research

This is a strategy of research that passes the control of practice over to the individual teacher in a specific setting. The conventional view of this strategy is that practitioners may follow a certain action-reflection procedure that will allow them to improve an unsatisfactory situation. This procedure is one of identification of a problem, and subsequent resolution of the problem through a process of observation—solution— action—reflection—modification (e.g. Kemmis and McTaggart, 1982; Elliott, 1981).

In my view (see also McNiff, 1988), this approach to action research still assumes the primacy of the observer who, in this case, is offering a course of action for others to follow. Granted that the teacher is in control of the action-reflection cycle; but it seems still the case that a certain theoretical course of action guides the practical decisions in action of teachers in each and any situation. (I will discuss another approach to action research in Chapter 3.)

The nature of research, in this dominant tradition, is that theory forms and informs practice. Researchers propose certain hypotheses which are then implemented by others within practical situations. Theory comes before practice. The form of the theory is propositional (see Chapter 2).

An extreme form of this approach assumes that the most credible research is undertaken by academics who pass on their findings to teachers (e.g. Wilson, 1989). This view is being vigorously challenged, particularly by those keen to promote the image of teachers as researchers (e.g. Stenhouse, 1975; Elliott, 1987), and by those who regard teachers’ attitudes as a vital component in the education of learners (e.g. Sockett, 1989).

My personal view here tallies with that of Denis Vincent (personal correspondence) that ‘in-service providers tend to be opportunists and will use “experts” for entertainment value but generally see the real work being done in much more reflective, problem solving modes.’

FOCUS

It is interesting, too, how the focus of research has changed over recent years. I have so far indicated a shift in a conceptualisation of the nature of research, from being the property of the external researcher to becoming the property of the individual teacher. It is also possible to identify a shift away from a focus on the institution to a focus on the individual.

(a) Institution-based research

In the last decade there has been a massive endeavour to move away from the disciplines approach to educational research as applied to teacher education. In this view, teachers’ practices were seen largely in terms of implementations of the curriculum in relation to the insights from the philosophy, history, sociology and psychology of education; and where learner performance was judged in terms of how well aspects of the curriculum had been internalised. Good practice was seen as the integration of the separate disciplines within a curriculum.

(b) Classroom-based research

The work of Lawrence Stenhouse and his colleagues at the Centre of Applied Research in Education, primarily through the Humanities Curriculum Project, did much to promote the idea of the teacher as researcher. From focusing on the institution, research now moved into the classroom. Interest centred on the practices of teachers, and there was an initiative to ‘take the lid off the black box of teachers’ practices’ (Eggleston et al, 1976).

(c) Practitioner-centred research

In the 1980s, the teacher-researcher movement gathered more and more adherents. Advisers and consultants took on an enabling role. It is important to note two aspects, though: (1) the nature of research was still grounded in method (how classrooms should be run); and (2) the form of this method was still arranged by external agents (e.g. Kemmis and McTaggart, 1982). Granted that the research in question was about the activities of individual teachers, and conducted by those individual teachers; the status of research was still derivative (controlled externally), and the focus was still concerned with descriptions of what other people were doing.

So now we are at a point to move into a discussion of the emergence of a new paradigm; a form of research that enables teachers to develop their own understanding of their own practice, and to turn their practice into a form of research.

2 Practice into theory

This section deals with the need for the development of teachers’ personal theories of education (Whitehead, 1983), drawn from the experience of their own ‘reflection in action’. It emphasises the need for teachers’ conscious understanding to be placed at the centre of explanations.

Whereas the dominant paradigm operates in terms of collectivism, this approach regards the individual practitioner as the centre of the research study. In philosophical terms, it is the development of knowledge of self, the integrity of the living ‘I’ as the focus of educational enquiries; in educational terms, it is the concern by the practitioner to focus critically on areas that need attention and, through a systematic cycle of critical reflection in action, to work towards improving the situation.

Again, let me consider here the status and the focus of enquiries from this perspective.

STATUS

Let me adapt a concept from Chomsky (1986) of E-and I-status. Let me say that E-(externalised) enquries are those conducted by one person into the practices of others. This is the traditional pattern of INSET research. Someone observes and describes teachers’ classroom actions and gives advice on how they might be improved. An I-(internalised) enquiry is that conducted by the individual into her own practice. She reflects critically on her work, either privately or through discussion with others, and aims to think of original ways that will help her improve. The status of an Ienquiry is personal. Any improvement in the practice involves a commitment by the practitioner.

FOCUS

In E-enquiries the focus of the research is the practices of others. In Ienquiries the focus is the practice of the self. If I say that practice is part of an individual’s way of life (how I act, and why I act this way), I may say that the focus of an I-enquiry is the self.

It is interesting now to note the difference of perspective in the concept of research, as it is applied within these two paradigms. In E-enquiries the purpose of research is to observe, describe and explain what other people are doing. Its status is derivative—that is, the accounts given of the research are those of the recorder, but not always of the practitioner. The accounts themselves aim to offer explanations to others through an ‘objective’ study of the data, to see if those data (facts about the study) fit the recorder’s theory. In this conventional INSET research pattern, the observer has reasonably clear ideas about how a pedagogical situation ought to be; he watches the teacher, and advises the teacher on her action plans.

In an I-enquiry the purpose of the research is to explain what I, the practitioner, am doing. Its status is personal. The accounts rendered are those of myself, and aim to offer an externalisation of my mental processes as I try to bring about change; that is, I try to show how I was dissatisfied with personal practice, and why, and the steps I have taken in order to improve. By this, I mean to overcome a situation in which my values are denied; so I aim to improve my thinking (an improvement of mental processes) with a view to improving my practice (an improvement in my actions in the world). My practice is an outcome of my thought, and my improved practice is an outcome of my improved understanding.

The status of my I-enquiry is explanatory because its focus is the self. My explanations are based on personal reasons for personal actions. I may be assisted in the formulations of my explanations by critical friends who question me on why I do as I do; it is my answers to those questions which give an explicit account for my reasons in action.

In this view, educational research aims to encourage the development of personal understanding that will lead to an improved form of practice. It becomes an enquiry by the self of the self; and, rather than aim to fit personal practice into another person’s theory, it concerns itself with enabling individuals to develop their own personal theories.

Let me formalise this process of personal ‘enquiry in action’. Let me suggest that many personal enquiries begin with a sense of vision. The origin of the enquiry lies in the vision of the enquirer which embodies her values. For example, I wish that all children had equal opportunities; that we all cared for each other; that we enjoyed peace and freedom—these are some of my (educational) values.

The vision is of a satisfactory state. This satisfactory state is an expression of the realised values of the enquirer, in which statements of fact and statements of value blend in the same form, both linguistic and conceptual, in a steady state. My statement, ‘I wish that all children were loved’, may be seen as an expressed value of the vision of the enquirer. The practice of the enquirer may not be within a location in which all children are loved, however, nor may it have such an expression; resulting in the statement of fact: ‘Not all children are loved.’ Statements of fact are separated from statements of value, and therefore form separate realms of discourse. The vision of the enquirer is of the day when the negation may be negated, and the situation transformed into one of stability.

The slippage rests in the experience of ‘I’ as a living contradiction, in that my values are not fully realised in practice (Whitehead, see below Chapter 3). This denial, itself an unsatisfactory state, causes tension in the mind of the enquirer. The sense of crisis occasioned by the lack of stability causes her to want to act in order to restore the balance.

Seen from this perspective, the process of an enquiry in action aims to draw a theory out of practice. Contrary to the traditional form of INSET research, where theory acts as the basis for others’ practices, this approach that centres on an individual’s understanding sees practice as the ground for the development of the process of theorising.

There are two very important points here: (i) I am trying to show that each individual may legitimately theorise about her own practice, and aim to build theories; (ii) an individual may offer a tentative theory which she openly accepts as subject to change: the action of theorising as a process is a concept more appropriate to educational development than the state of referencing a theory. In this view, people change their practices, and their practices change them. The interface between person and practice is the process of theory building, which involves a critical reflection on the process of ‘reflection in action’, and which legitimates the notion of a changing individual in...

Table of contents

• Cover Page
• Title Page
• Copyright Page
• Acknowledgements
• Foreword
• Introduction
• Part I I Experience a Problem When Some of My Educational Values are Denied in My Practice
• Part II I Imagine a Solution to the Problem
• Part III I Act in The Direction of the Solution
• Part IV I Evaluate the Imagined Solutions
• Part V I Modify My Ideas and My Practice in the Light of the Evaluation
• Appendix
• Stars
• Bibliography