Impact of Action Research at the School Level

Impact of Action Research at the School Level
The impact of engaging in action research often went beyond influencing individual teachers and students to affect the collegial and professional relationships between the researcher and school-based colleagues and administrators. In a number of cases the process of doing the action research as well as the research findings also played a role in shaping the policies, practices, and structures of the school.
Impact on Service Delivery
When asked to identify how their action research impacted their school sites, the researchers most frequently identified change in the systems and organization of the school that structure the way in which services are provided to students with disabilities. Descriptions of how the studies resulted in the implementation of these new structures and strategies can be found throughout the interviews and written reports. These changes included smaller class sizes, schedule changes, less frequent pull-out instruction, new transition processes, enhanced teaming and mutual feelings of responsibility toward students, increased common planning time, and role modeling between regular and special education students. Furthermore, many of the researchers reported that these changes have resulted in their ability to more effectively meet the needs of their special education students:
"One of the things we thought of doing differently was to have an adapted or special education section of Driver's Education. I think my action research brought out some of the more positive things that come out of an inclusion class, like having positive role models and fewer behavior problems. So, the decision is that we're not going to create a special class [just for the special education students]."
(TH)
"One thing we were able to do out of our research was to create a transition form to be used by the fifth grade teachers that would give us a better idea of where to place the kids once they came to middle school. Basically, the time we had for our research gave us the time to really look at the skills the special education kids needed in order to be successful in regular education."
(TN)
Impact on School Practices and Professional Interactions
Many of the action researchers also identified specific examples of changes in school practices that occurred as a result of the studies. They identified a shift toward creating more balance between meeting the needs of students and making adjustments to better accommodate the needs of staff, or meeting the learning needs of all students and maintaining a safe learning environment. In addition, researchers reported changes in curriculum and instructional strategies as a result of their findings.
"Last year we had staff tearing their hair out about issues in the building. I think people are feeling better about that. We can continue to meet the needs of our students, but meet the needs of larger populations, making sure that everyone can learn in a safe place." [TC]
"The one thing that stuck out to me was that the self-contained classes, all the special education classes, they said were too easy. They said that they don't get enough homework. They aren't challenged enough...It's been kind of a wakeup call that we need to make our self-contained classes harder and give more homework. We can't stop challenging the kids." [TH]
The action researchers also identified multiple ways in which their work impacted professional interactions with colleagues. The most frequently noted was discussion of specific research findings with individuals, teams, or the whole faculty at staff meetings or other school forums. In some cases this professional dialogue was initiated when researchers asked colleagues to participate in some aspect of the study such as giving feedback about the research question or methodology, or providing data. The value of the research increased in cases where it addressed issues that colleagues deemed important. Additionally, dialogue among various professional groupings was enhanced in instances where data collection designs solicited feedback from multiple stakeholder groups. A number of the researchers noted that the knowledge they gained from doing the studies led others to seek out and value their expertise.
"People have been really interested. I had several special education teachers give the surveys to their classes and some of them requested in writing copies of what I found out." [TM]
"...[the principal] reviewed the survey and gave some input on it. When I shared the information, she was very positive about it. She thought it might work." [TF]
"Actually, one of the results of our survey and sharing at the staff meeting was that they put together an instructional design team for next year. We're getting regular education teachers, ESL, Title, and special education teachers-all of us--together." (TF)
"Because I interviewed both regular and special education students, the results were [shared with] the department chair. This definitely affected the way teachers feel about inclusion." (TH)
Research findings also served as the basis for school planning and decision-making, and frequently led to some level of implementation involving colleagues. While some felt responsible for promoting change on behalf of their colleagues as a result of their data and findings, in other instances, building principals actively used the studies as a catalyst for dialogue in an effort to encourage collaboration and shared decision making among faculty.
Over all, researchers expressed great satisfaction when some action was taken at the school level to address the issues identified in their research. At the same time, the small number of researchers who were unable to identify a forum for dialogue or who felt that nothing changed as a result of their work expressed frustration.
"My [research demonstrated] that in order for cross-categorical and full inclusion to work, there had to be certain things in place. This year, they are not in place, and it is very difficult...what we said was totally disregarded. Nothing changed...my principal knows how I feel and how others feel, but as far as I know nothing will change." (TB)
"It's a frustrating year. My action research started me asking questions...Because now I know how things could be, and I can see so clearly that they are not the way they should be..." (TN)
Impact on Collegial Interactions Beyond the School
Deepening professional interaction across school sites is a central factor in how the action research group processes are designed4. The opportunity to interact with teachers from across the district in monthly research group meetings was highly valued by participants, as it reduced the sense of isolation many teachers felt, particularly as they grappled with challenging changes in their work setting. The opportunity to share current practices and to problem solve with others who have similar jobs was identified by participants as one of the most beneficial aspects of taking part in the research program.
"One thing that really everyone said was that [special educators] feel totally isolated out there. There are lots of new changes and people don't know where to go [for help]." (TJ)
"What we [special educators] do is very different compared to what a lot of the other professionals in our buildings do. The frustrations that we have are hard for other teachers to understand at times. What has been so great is just to sit down with these folks from other schools who are basically doing the same things." (TI)
The opportunity to reflect collaboratively in this way provided a fresh lens with which to look at old problems and created an information base for forming new strategies. Individuals stated that they benefited from the opportunity to test out their observations and conclusions with others, and were more motivated to try out new ideas after hearing about others' theories and practices.
"It's interesting to be with a group of people from different schools and to listen to what it's like at different schools and how every school has its separate struggles. And sit there and think, 'Really? That's how you do it at your school? That's not how...', you know? So for me that's been really interesting. I've learned from that." (TA)
"So classroom action research really brought some different schools together that are not in the same attendance area. I heard about the collaborative teaching that some of the people are doing which really motivates me to try to get something like that going here." (TE)
The professional network that developed as a consequence was frequently noted. As a result of these bonds, participants not only consulted with each other beyond group meeting times but indicated that they would be more likely to contact colleagues and seek support from others on future issues.
At the end of the project year, action researchers participating in this study were provided an additional forum for sharing their work with the Jack Jorgensen, Director of Special Education; other special education administrators; several building administrators and other action researchers from the district. This powerful community experience multiplied the positive impact of group support and feelings of efficacy for individual researchers.
"When we presented our projects at the end of last year, [the Director] was at my table when I shared. He was very supportive. I was impressed by how supportive he was throughout the whole process by allocating the funds and supporting our professional development." (TM)
"We met with [the Director] as a group in a round table discussion last spring. My paper was all about how as a first year teacher I did not feel there was much support for me-not much opportunity to talk to people about how things were going for me. This year they have developed a support group and I felt like that really tied into what I found." (TO)
Finally, reading the work of previous action researchers and having others read about their work was cited as a way in which collegial relationships were formed and supported. Individuals felt that reading studies from past action researhers helped them think more carefully about their questions and research strategies. Additionally, they were surprised at the frequency with which other colleagues commented on and asked them questions about their findings once studies were published.
The Impact of the Action Research on the District
The District Level Rationale for Special Education Action Research Groups
Jack Jorgensen, the district administrator in charge of special education, knew that when the Madison Metropolitan School District called on all schools to implement a cross categorical service delivery model the change would cause enormous challenges, particularly for the special education teachers. This and other recent policy shifts would not only broaden the number of disability areas covered by individual teachers, but would fundamentally alter the nature of the work that many special education teachers did with their students. He also knew that dramatic policy changes in the district typically elicited a significant amount of anxiety and uncertainty from teachers as they learned how to effectively negotiate their new roles and responsibilities. One of the things Jorgensen did to help ease special education teachers and the district at large through this transition smoothly was to fund two special education teacher action research groups.
As noted above, two primary objectives guided Jorgensen's decision to support these action research projects. First, he believed this would provide special education teachers with an avenue for exploring the dramatic changes they were facing as a result of the shift to a cross-categorical service delivery model. While the district administration were aware that special education teachers were very concerned about the changes inherent in the shift to cross-categorical programming, he felt that:
There were still a lot of outstanding questions around that. Why was that such a big issue? And we haven't really gotten into some of the more in-depth kind of questions that we would have liked to have asked...Certainly [the action research project] allowed teachers to take more of a direct role in framing for themselves the concerns and issues that they wanted to further address.
While the teacher action research groups were meant to be beneficial to the participating teachers on an individual level, Jorgensen also expected the studies to have a direct impact on the district as a whole. Specifically, his second objective was to have the action research studies provide him with information generated by teachers themselves about their professional development needs. In the early fall of 1999, Jorgensen attended the two newly formed special education teacher action research groups to explain why he was funding the project. He "framed it to make sure that they understood that I had sort of a self serving need out of this to come away with some information, [namely, the] recommendations they might have for me that would help shape a multi-year professional development plan." Jorgensen met again with the two research groups at the end of the year to hear what had been learned. In the end, Jorgensen identified as the most significant influence the studies had on district level policies and practices was its impact on a multi-year professional development plan that was developed during the summer of 2000, following the research year.
Impact on Professional Development
The Madison district developed a multi-year professional development plan in order to help schools and special education teachers adapt to the fundamental changes that the policy shifts had had on the area of special education. In planning out the professional development plan, the district used numerous strategies to gather information from special education teachers and assistants about the kinds of professional development opportunities they felt they needed. The teacher action research groups proved to be one of the key sources of information that influenced the shape of the multi-year plan. The role that the action research groups played in the design of the professional development plan lent credibility to the plan itself.
In the plan that emerged, a number of specific outcomes for professional development arose out of the teacher action research groups. For example:
1. One first year teacher explored the challenges she faced just trying to learn how to fulfill her multiple roles and responsibilities. The professional development plan called for the establishment of "a first year special education teacher professional development program."
2. In the action research meetings teachers discussed how valuable it was to have the opportunity to talk with colleagues from other schools about both common challenges and successful strategies. A key piece of the professional development plan revolved around peer coaching.
3. In the action research meetings teachers also talked extensively about how helpful it would be to have a district wide website that would facilitate the flow of information between teachers and the district and among teachers about issues facing special education teachers. Such a site was established under the professional development plan.
4. A number of action research studies concluded that there was, as Jack Jorgensen explained, "a need to provide professional certification for teachers so that they can be more prepared to work with students who have disabilities other than the ones the teachers are trained in." This kind of professional development was incorporated into the plan.
5. A number of action research studies focused on the need for teachers to learn about effective strategies for working in partnership with regular education teachers. This kind of professional development was also incorporated into the plan.
6. Several action research studies discovered the need for more professional development for special education assistants. A professional development program for these assistants was initiated in the fall of 2000.
Challenges
While the teacher action research project proved to be enormously beneficial to individual teachers and schools, and according to Jorgensen even had a significant impact on the district level special education policies and practices, at the same time, maintaining on-going communication between the district and the teachers about the extent of the district-level impact was challenging. As a consequence, while the teachers were very impressed with Jorgensen's attendance and interaction with them at research meetings, in follow up interviews most expressed dubiousness that their work had actually influenced district level planning. This was consistently true despite the fact that the action research groups had been cited as sources of influence on the professional development plan in both oral presentations and printed information about the plan.
The teachers' lack of knowledge about the role of their studies on the district stemmed from a couple of key factors. First, most of the teachers conducted studies on aspects of their own work with students and consequently did not expect their research to impact district level administration. Participants repeatedly suggested that their work was not generalizeable to the district level even though it had been enormously beneficial to them. Secondly, while the teachers may have been interested in taking advantage of the professional development opportunities that resulted in part from their own action research studies, they did not for the most part express a keen interest in knowing why those particular opportunities had been made available to them.
Conclusion
This paper has examined the unusual case where a central office school district administrator invested funds to support two teacher action research groups concerned with issues of cross-categorical service delivery in special education with the specific intent of informing district level professional development planning and of more actively involving teachers in shaping the implementation of the new policy. Participating in the research groups had a variety of effects on the fifteen participating teacher researchers, on their classroom practices and students, and on practices in their schools and beyond. These included a greater understanding of the multiple meanings associated with the term cross-categorical programming; greater insight into how staff in a particular building or across the district viewed different program models and their work as special education teachers; useful information about how students had different experiences under various program conditions such as inclusion and pull-out models, and how they viewed these experiences; and the introduction of different classroom practices (e.g., organizational skills study groups for students) that were intended to address problems that were illuminated through teachers' inquiries. Many of the teachers greatly valued the opportunity to interact with colleagues from across the district as well as with the district's Director of Educational Services, and felt professionally strengthened by the experience of being in an action research group.
Although a number of specific links between teachers' research and subsequent district level plans could be identified in our research (e.g., the initiation of a professional development program for first year special education teachers and special education assistants), a few teachers expressed disappointment about the perceived lack of follow-though on their research on the part of their colleagues, schools, or district. From our outside perspective as researchers, we could see that even though a number of issues and recommendations arising from the teachers' inquiries had indeed been incorporated into district planning, the teachers were not always necessarily aware of these actions. Another factor involved in teachers' satisfaction with the level of follow-up from their research was the connection of the building principals to the research. The principals of the fifteen teachers varied in their knowledge of and support for the research studies. Some of the issues raised in the teachers' studies required implementation at the building level rather than at the district level. Some of the principals encouraged the teachers to share their research with the staff of their schools and supported follow-up activities and others did not do so. Strengthening the links of the principals to the action research projects is an issue that will need to be addressed in the future if the research studies of teachers are going to impact school policies and practices to a greater extent.
In the two years since the original effort, Jorgensen has funded four similar action research groups. At the end of each year, participating researchers have come together to share what they have learned with central office staff and building principals, thus ensuring that the Madison Metropolitan School District's commitment to using teacher action research to inform district policy with regard to special education policy and practice continues.