Using Action Research to Improve Educational Practices: Where We Are and Where We Are Going

In the current era of school accountability triggered by the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB) (2001), teachers and other school professionals are expected to ensure that all students reach academic standards set by each state. Pressure is on schools to make progress each year toward the goal of 100% of students reaching those minimum standards, regardless of their background or exceptionality. Though few would disagree with the merit of the intent of NCLB, one consequence of the resulting political climate is an over reliance on “scientifically-based” curricular reforms. These reforms promise broad student success but can take away teachers’ autonomy and are counter to the idea that teachers are able professionals with the knowledge and skills needed to improve their practices for the benefit of students’ academic success. For those of us who teach and facilitate in-service teachers’ action research studies, it has become increasingly difficult to help teachers navigate school climates where they are expected to focus on students’ attainment of standards but are not given a voice in how best to meet that goal. After a year of conducting action research studies, the teachers and administrators with whom I work state emphatically that the process made them more reflective professionals who view themselves as practitionerresearchers with the ability to make real changes in schools. However, few continue with action research studies beyond their graduate program requirements because of competing professional obligations, school cultures that do not support action research, or conflicts with school and district goals. In one case, an elementary teacher and former student contacted me for advice about a new reading curriculum the teachers at her school were required to implement. This teacher was told to adhere to the model without straying from the prescribed instructional methods, which were not working for her population of students. She subversively collected data by observing students, conferencing with them, and engaging them in think-alouds, and she was confident she could alter the curriculum to make it more effective for her students. She knew, though, that this might mean losing her job. In the end, she made the changes, kept quiet about it, and watched her students’ test scores increase. Her subversion, which was nothing more than engaging in the reflective activities of a professional educator, benefited students’ achievement. But her additions and alterations to the reading curriculum also benefited a curriculum package that, because of her students’ success, appeared to be more powerful than it actually was in her classroom.