Planning as action research

Educational Action Research, Volume 12, Number 1, 2004 Planning as Action Research CARMEN BEATRIZ DE GONZALEZ UPEL Caracas, Venezuela TERESA HERNANDEZ UPEL Barquisimeto Venezuela JIM KUSCH University of New Brunswick, Canada CHARLY RYAN King Alfred’s College, Winchester, United Kingdom ABSTRACT Planning contains so much more than the written plan. Early in 2000, an invitation came from the Collaborative Action Research Network (CARN), to people experienced in action research who might want to help plan and present an action research event for elementary school science teachers in Venezuela, South America, in Autumn 2000. This article analyses the outcomes from planning and enacting the resulting workshop to show how planning can be the subject of action research. It goes on to show how planning and teaching interact in a multifaceted way towards technical, practical and emancipatory ends. Planning and teaching are best seen as conversation, a conversation that is both synchronous and asynchronous. Introduction This account presents the way that we approached planning and carrying out a workshop for teacher educators in Venezuela. We have attempted to show something of the way that the planning–teaching relationship might be viewed in a multi-vocal way, which tries to show how such a relationship might be seen as educational. As Lomax & Parker argue (1995, p. 302): Educational forms of representation should be pluralistic, rather than monolithic, and diverse, rather than constrained, so that they celebrate the unique, personal, and subjective strengths of individual action research and help researchers display their own personal signatures. 59 Carmen Beatriz de Gonzalez et al Furthermore, we argue that our approach to planning is conversational, one that can help optimise the learning of the parties involved in the project, the people taking part in the research, the authors with their particular interests in the project and the wider community by being part of other conversations. If growth is to happen then space for growth is needed (Sinnott, 1993) within our planning and acting. Teaching and learning is principally conversational, dia- or multi-logic. It operates on authority that is constantly questioned in its practice. When educating occurs par excellence teaching is oral. As it is with conversation, in teaching and in planning digressions happen constantly; whenever other planners listen, raise a brow, laugh or sigh, the planner watches out as those cues direct thought in conversational planning. In the end the planners still manage to ready practice. The structure of the event may be fleshed out beyond recognition through multiple digressions during planning sessions and facilitating or teaching sessions, but it falls into place in the end. Thus, the focus of planning is enriched by the orality of conversation. So planning contains so much more than the written plan. The growth of the conversational partners, here tied to the enactment of the planning, is not predictable, as this is the nature of a conversation. The work we present contains some of those spaces and less obvious connections that are sparked by conversational planning, areas that show the potential for growth as defined by Dadds (2002): Judgement, critique, adaptation are needed to build bridges between one person’s knowledge and another’s improvements. Conversational learning circumstances are needed for these processes to take effect ... We are deceived if we believe that outsider knowledge can be downloaded. Only information can be passed on in this way. Knowledge requires more complex transformations of mind and heart. (Dadds, 2000, p. 20) At the heart of interpretation is understanding. Iser argues that we understand when we ‘concretise’ communication, that is, when words or acts of planning occur simultaneously in practice (Iser, 1993). We read ourselves through and in the communicative act, in which case, communication is rarely neutral, but rather, participatory. We participate through and with communication. We will first present the context for our work, before going on to look at models of action research and planning. We will then present our views of planning, with evidence from the workshop, to show its relationship to practice. Finally, we will draw conclusions about the way we might view the role of planning and evaluating outcomes of our teaching. Context Early in 2000, an invitation came from the Collaborative Action Research Network (CARN), to people experienced in action research who might want 60 PLANNING AS ACTION RESEARCH to help plan and present an action research event for elementary school science teachers in Venezuela, South America, in autumn 2000. This led to a team of three quite different researchers, one each from England, Venezuela and the USA coming together, in Winchester, United Kingdom, to plan and run a workshop at the Universidad Pedagógica Experimental Libertador (UPEL), known in English as the Advanced Pedagogical University, Venezuela. This new University comprises 10 separate Institutes, which are located in most of the major urban centres of Venezuela. This workshop is the focus of this article (a chronology of key events is given in Table I). Two of the authors, JK and CR, were planners and presenters of the workshop, and CG and TH were participants in the workshop. None of us had previously met, although JK and CR had the potential to be acquainted via their writings and conference activity. As part of the planning the three planners met for 3 days in Winchester, United Kingdom in August 2000. Date March 2000 June 9 2000 July 2000 August 27-30 2000 October 14 2000 October 16 2000 October 17 2000 October 18-20 2000 October 21 2000 October 23 2000 to date December 26-28 2000 October 29-November 1 2001 Event Call by Collaborative Action Research Network for interest in a workshop in Venezuela on action research to improve elementary science teaching. Formal invitations to JK and CR from Vice Rector Bezada to give a lecture, and to run a workshop (UPEL Event) for university teachers on action research. Email organisation of Winchester Event to plan the UPEL Event. Winchester Event where the three leaders planned the UPEL Event. JK and CR arrive in Venezuela. Workshop for education faculty at IPB Barquisimeto. Planning for UPEL Event. Workshop for doctoral students, UPEL Caracas. UPEL Event for 25 teacher educators from nine of the ten constituent institutes of UPEL. Visit to Centro Medico Docente La Trinidad, Caracas, to discuss action research for health education and community development. Leave Caracas. Email analysis and discussion of outcomes from the workshop. Workshop in Winchester. JK and CR analysis of outcomes and discussion of progress. Plan writing. CARN International Conference presentation of some outcomes of the work. Table I. Chronology of key activities. By the time of the Winchester Event, JK and CR had made preliminary proposals to UPEL of possible activity titles, without knowing much of the context where the workshop was to take place. We discussed earlier action 61 Carmen Beatriz de Gonzalez et al research activities, though it was less clear how our workshop related to that. As early as 1973, the Simon Rodriguez National Experimental University had promoted participatory research, without a grass-roots organisational base (Dinan & Garcia, 1991). At UPEL, there has been a policy to carry out research relating to the work of teachers. This policy saw the need to adopt a critical, reflexive position to study teacher education and to cope with the changes to the Venezuelan education system. However, research is not well developed within the university. Much of what there is focuses on problems faced by the university, with only a small number taking an action research approach (Barrientos, 2000). The letters of invitation from Vice-Rector Bezada to JK and CR requested that we: • lecture about our experience in the field of Action Research ‘related to the improving of Teacher Training quality and the development of lines of research with special reference to Environmental Education and Science Education’; • participate in a discussion panel; • each conduct an 8-hour workshop on developing skills on action research; • develop a network of teachers to produce publications in this area. This was a very broad remit for what was to be a 3-day workshop. Drawing on our experience, we assumed that the participants, who were to be elementary school science teachers, would wish to leave the workshop with plans for introducing action research approaches into their practice. We discussed the current state of science teaching in Venezuela and tried to come to some understanding of the contexts in which teachers worked. For JK and CR, this statement by GR, our Venezuelan planning colleague, situated our thinking and clarified expectations, which were not apparent in the formal invitation from the Vice-Rector: Well there is this aspect of content and there is this aspect of thinking. They cannot be so different one from another. What I think is that here [UK] you teach people to think logically even though the content is not up to date, or is not realistic. But at least you have that part. That is what I feel we don’t have. And you mentioned earlier ‘communication’, no, the way teachers communicate. They, to be concrete. How to be concrete in the classroom in a science classroom for example. Because that will help you to be logical and to be a certain way of thinking. Concretely. I, I always say that for example in these classes where I got all that mix of [teacher education] students from different subjects, whenever I have students from mathematics, or those who are from chemistry or physics already the way they think is more concrete, a more logical than those that are generalists. (Transcript, Tuesday August 28th, 16.35) 62 PLANNING AS ACTION RESEARCH This suggested that purposes and practice in school science teaching would be a central issue in the UPEL Event. As it turned out, the participants at the event were actually groups of teacher educators drawn from nine of the 10 constituent centres of UPEL. Some of these participants were already carrying out action research projects. We asked questions about who would participate in the event, and which purposes would be served by the event that we organised. We knew there had been previous action research or participatory research initiatives. How would the action research event of October 2000 continue this work? We wondered how we might create approaches that were new. Would participants in the event be experienced action researchers or were we introducing them to action research for the first time? Planning for Action Research and as Action Research There is a range of ways that protocols for planning, and perhaps describing, action research have been presented. While they are useful for thinking about planning, they are less useful as a description of what happens or for the analysis of what happens (McNiff et al, 1996; Harland & Staniforth, 2000; Price, 2001). One common approach, which lies clearly within a Rational Curriculum Planning (RCP) model, is the scheme funded by the United Kingdom. ‘Best Practice Research Scholarship’ (Teacher Training Agency [TTA], 2002), designed to support action research by teachers to develop ‘best’ practice. The application form implies a simple sequence of specification of: aims, expected outcomes, data collection, sequencing activities, analysing the data and communicating the outcomes. While such models may be helpful in initial stages of planning what to do, as descriptions of the action research process they seemed to lack the necessary interaction between the phases, the complexity of acting in a social field. While Elliott’s model (1991) provides for interaction between phases of planning, acting, observing and reflecting, we agreed with Atkinson (1994), who argues that this does not match the reality of the classroom. She identifies the tensions between thought and action, and argues that a researcher might be doing all stages simultaneously. She also identifies the important aspect of needing power to act. We assumed that visiting international experts were likely to be given the power to act, at least within the workshop we were planning. We also knew that the participants might not be able to act as they wished within their own contexts, because of the nature of politics or decision making within their own institutions, of which we would know very little. In our view, action research refers to the inclination of educational researchers to think that their interpretive stances are directly tied to social change. This may especially be the case within Latin America, where there is a long tradition of social and participatory action, much of it summed up in a Chilean name for such research investigación protagónica (protagonic or perhaps protagonists’ research; Anderson & Montero-Smith, 1998). Callewaert reads critical pedagogy as defining itself as an action research 63 Carmen Beatriz de Gonzalez et al that conflates the distinction of theory and practice, and which blurs fundamental distinctions through making theoretical and practical knowledge exist in a single continuum, imbricated in each other (Callewaert, 1999). Furthermore, Callewaert argues that one function of the science of education is that we face the consequence that the practical knowledge at work in the researcher’s mind is not scientific theory. Rather, life interpretation with practical sense and objectified explanation are two different and distinctive endeavours. They are a homologous couple that act as a pair of perspectives that are relative in value and structure that are not reducible to each other (Popkewitz, 1998). Drawing on Carr & Kemmis (1986), the idea we came to work with was ‘Learning about action research involves the active participation of the learner in constructing and controlling the language and activities of their learning about action research.’ This learning is on two levels the authors’ learning as planners of and thinkers about action research, and the authors’ learning as leaders and participants in an AR workshop. We aim to show the correspondences between the two processes of planning and of leading a workshop. Much writing on action research refers to its purposes and we have shown that we see the purpose as social action and development. Grundy (1987) argues that action research is done for one of three reasons, technical, practical or emancipatory. However, Gore & Zeichner (1991) show that these levels may not be exclusive, that the same activity might serve all three purposes. Furthermore, as Zeichner (2000) argues, within action research, planning and outcomes often come not from a conscious decision before the start of the process, but from being in the process, a view we came to share as a group. There has been less reporting on action research about planning for action as opposed to reporting on action. In our meeting in Winchester, we came to the conclusion that our actions should embody our research, and that this research, as shown in the rationale for our actions, should be shared with the people we were working with. Consequently, we decided to collect data from both the planning meeting and the UPEL workshop itself to provide a basis for a written account of our research. So for us, planning, the outcomes of our planning and our enactment of that planning arose during interlocking processes in the two events in Winchester and Caracas, through a reflexive approach to action. We will present material from the Winchester meeting and from the UPEL workshop to show these outcomes. Finally, we will draw the sections back together to show the interrelated nature of the events and of the learning. We will also show that the learning is not necessarily evident or explicit at the time that the events are taking place. The learning and the events are in part asynchronous. 64 PLANNING AS ACTION RESEARCH Planning Group planning is transformed by discussing multiple views of teaching and learning. Planning for the UPEL event meant arranging and organising so as to generate a way to practise. What did we have to work with? CR pointed out in Winchester that the RCP model preceded our planning for the event in Venezuela. It was implicit in the letter of invitation where we had to send an outline of our intentions in the form of a plan, including aims, objectives and activities in order to have the workshop proposal approved. The RCP model is also a useful format for reporting accounts of action research projects and is implicit in the classical structure of a research report, much as we have presented here. This is, perhaps, an ironic feature in a paper that purports to undermine aspects of such a model. That model was there already, it made the possibility of the event sensible to us. However, the RCP model was really not sufficient for us. Given what we learned as discussed and planned in Winchester, we soon decided that even to copy the RCP model or its elements would not achieve what we wished. We needed another way of conceiving the event, neither the RCP model nor its copy, but an arrangement of ambiguity. When using a prescribed or rational planning model one may read the plan and the ensuing practice as a sequence of stages or steps. We felt that we could not read the action research problem we faced as a sequence; nor could we plan with a sequence, perhaps as the novelty of the context helped us to make explicit knowledge that might normally have remained implicit. In a rational planning model, there is an illusion of a beginning and end to a resultant practice; we see that as a false illusion. The rational planning model gives a nominal structure to the plan and the way we practice, whereas in planning action research the phenomenal structure is all at once. In a rational planning model you can walk through the plan and understand its content because of the way it is designed to be understood. On the other hand, action research has at least two textual dimensions: a vertical dimension, which you see from the outside as the intended event replete with times schedules and activities. The second is an internal dimension that gathers belief and conscience, which are nebulous by contrast with steps and stages. The vertical dimension was made visible in our outline planning and made available to participants before the event (see Table II). When we try to teach to prespecified standards, we get into what might be called ‘Red Queen Labour’, like the angry queen in Alice in Wonderland. She sees danger everywhere with new ideas and so just gets into a fit with trying to do things the right way. Where planners face highly ambiguous practice, again made more evident by our context, they have to expend a whole lot of energy to stay in one place (Eldredge, 1995, p. 90). However, this is energy well spent if the planning ensures that unacceptable energy demands in the enacting are removed. What is not evident in Table II is the internal dimension. Much of our debate in Winchester, as shown by a later analysis of our audio recordings and subsequent email correspondence, relate to the way that our actions might be seen as aiming at emancipation. 65 Carmen Beatriz de Gonzalez et al It is shown by a concern for the moral aspects of what we were about and a decision to make this evident to the participants for their debate with us and themselves, and so become a research action. Three episodes will be presented to show how this was enacted, all taken from early in the workshop to show how we attempted to make explicit and to construct this internal dimension from the start. Day 1: morning Day 1: afternoon Break Day 2: morning Day 2: afternoon Day 3: morning Day 3: afternoon Survey of ‘What do you hope to get out of this conference?’ Discussion of various purposes of action research, Jim. Uses of action research in teacher education, Charly. Round table Venezuelan perspectives on action research. Journals purposes and practice. Survey outcomes. Small group presentations. Do the outcomes and the journals suggest questions for us, the members of the small groups? Are there general points to put on a wall notice/class journal/poster/ information board? Coffee Questions about action research. What questions have they brought that I will be better able to answer by the end of the week? Each person to introduce themselves with their questions and ideas. Journal writing. Revisiting questions working individually or with others, drawing on strengths. Analysing data video clip, audio clip, texts (copies of extracts from the initial survey), photos. How does it match with your question? Ethics of data disclosure. Metacognitive strategies, deconstructing what Charly and Jim are doing. Collecting data – how was the data collected? Perhaps we have self and peer assessment included here. Project/research planning. Revising your question, how will you tackle it? Complete the planning grid. Peer support suggestions, etc., by critical questioning? Auditing our strengths, cf. the beginning entry in the journal. Asset mapping. Time planning, complete grid with peer feedback. What shall I do on Monday? Building a network. Coffee Evaluation. Review of evaluation and overview of the workshop. Post-box technique. Links to data gathering and analysis. Table II. Outline plan of the UPEL Workshop. 66 PLANNING AS ACTION RESEARCH In his opening talk CR started with a quotation from an analysis of the work of Freire (Gerhardt, 1993): The fundamentals of his ‘system’ point to an educational process that focuses on the students’ environment. Freire assumes that the learners must understand their own reality as part of their learning activity. (p. 1) He pointed out the contradiction between this espoused belief and his practice. As a presenter from another culture and country, he had to plan with little knowledge of the participants’ environment, so he was unable to meet this Freirian demand. The quote was also used to evoke resonances with a presumed understanding by the participants of Freire and his approaches. Debate emphasised the second aspect of the quotation, the role of learner as deconstructor and constructor of their own reality, and its corresponding consequences on the role of the teacher. The second episode relates to the survey activity. The workshop was recorded to provide a database for reflection and analysis. The transcript shows that JK presented the survey activity as follows: The activity that we did this morning arises from a conversation that we [JK and CR] had in England. The idea was to create some ambiguity at the start for the following reason. It connects to the problems we have in education. These in their turn are also ambiguous. When we begin research, a key value is conscience. One of the principle propositions of action research is to give a focus to the discussion and construction of knowledge. First action research helps us overcome obstacles. Usually we are isolated physically. Generally, teaching is defined by what an individual, solitary teacher does behind the doors of their classroom. In this scenario, classroom action is individual and evaluated as individual. We hope to show that it is collaborative in a variety of ways ... Teachers are seen as autonomous, independent, professional, posing questions. The teacher is not encouraged to talk of problems or difficulties. Only novice teachers can ask such questions about their practice. We should see, and ask the students we work with to see these issues and the multiple levels of our interactions and learning. (Audio transcript) The third episode follows shortly after, on the morning of the second day, rather than the end of the first day as the outline plan suggested. The preliminary survey, referred to in Table II, asked for the participants to think about their proposed action, to identify what values were embodied in the action, who would gain and who would loose. There was also a section that asked them to consider conscience and ethics. Here, we met a clear translation with the non-equivalence of conscience in English and conciencia in Spanish. In Spanish, it was taken in a more Freirian sense of 67 Carmen Beatriz de Gonzalez et al conscientisaçaõ or critical consciousness (Freire, 1986), an idea that was the source of a vigorous debate with the participants, in terms of our meanings, their meanings and whether an action research project might or should incorporate such aspects. Here we see a clear example of interaction between planning and enacting, with exploration of the meanings of each, for both the presenters and the participants of the workshop. The presentations of the participants’ analyses of subsets of the surveys were recorded in a participant’s journal as follows: The moderator of the workshop listened as each group reported back their analyses of their surveys and wrote keywords on a transparency as they emerged from the narratives. Among them: interaction, explication of behaviour, search for alternatives, knowledge of the culture, values, opportunities for learning, school as a research centre, change, responsibility, common good, participatory process etc. (TH journal, concerning Day 2) So the multiplicity and multivocality we had debated and experienced in the planning meeting interacted with the teaching as these three episodes show. They also interacted in less obvious ways, of which we will present two. The first way was when debate led us in an unexpected direction, our understanding, developed through conversation, allowed us to enact our planning in a conversational manner, exploring possibilities and unexpected occurrences as they arose. Thus, the workshop, unlike the original request for work with elementary science teachers, became one with teacher educators. There were sufficient spaces within our conversational planning to allow for this major change. A second way that the multivocality can be seen is in the outcomes of the workshop for the participants. They were asked to answer a range of questions, which were analysed using the Post-box technique (Bell, 1993). We present the outcomes from two questions, ‘As a teacher, what change have you undergone as a result of this workshop?’ and ‘What have I learnt about action research?’ in Appendices 1 and 2. Each statement represents the answer of one participant to the question, but the order of the participants in the two appendices does not match. What we see is a range of instant responses at the end of the 3-day workshop, which map on to a range of aspects of our planning discussions. Different participants say that they have been influenced by the process by collaboration, have learnt new skills and thought systematically about action research, their motivation for investigating their practice has increased, we can learn from others. Others claim more emancipatory outcomes. What is central to the responses are their links to principles that organise individual action and participation. The effects of the workshop may be found in the production of ideas, in dispositions and sensitivities of individuals as these are reported. The range of outcomes reported reflects the multi-levels and multi-facets of the process we had envisaged from the planning meeting. The views conveyed by the participants suggest that it 68 PLANNING AS ACTION RESEARCH was an educative experience for the participants and makes the effort personally and professionally fulfilling for the authors. When we look at the two sets of responses, it would seem that many participants might have given their replies under either question. This suggests that their perceptions of action research and themselves as a teacher are facets of a unity. It would seem that the hope that we had that action research might become part of them and their practice has already begun. We see changes that relate to both classroom practice and to research: ‘To take part in teams in a reflection on epistemological and theoretical aspects of action research’; and ‘Understanding that through action research I can improve my pedagogic practice’. Perhaps this shows that the multifaceted nature of the workshop led to outcomes that for the participants were difficult to sort into the categories of action research or being a teacher. This suggests that such an approach is one that should be repeated on other occasions. Conclusions What we have tried to show in this account is that planning teaching, learning and reflecting are multifaceted tasks, best seen as different forms of conversations. A first outcome is that we have found that like much good conversation it is not always a comfortable experience to take part. For growth to occur, we have to have spaces in which to grow. We have to create those spaces, which sometimes means that we may have to give up or suspend our cherished beliefs about our thoughts, actions and perceptions of who we are. This is often easier to see in others than in ourselves at the time. We saw some participants who found our approach very challenging to their ideas, yet who were prepared for their own reasons to go with our proposed actions to see where they might be taken or where they might go. Within these different types of conversation, we found it much easier to produce a plan of action that we could agree. Indeed, there was no option but to produce a plan of action and there was a limited time to do it. That meant that, within the multiple possibilities, we had to decide to act on one at any given time. When it came to reflecting on the experiences, reaching agreement was a trickier process. There are multiple interpretations and we had no time limit to complete the task. This may explain why we have taken 2 years to reach this point. We have come to realise that planning, as social action, can be seen as action research and the need to communicate the outcomes (Elliott, 1991). We feel there is a need to move beyond a linear, RCP model for planning and teaching to a more conversational; approach. As Parker Rees (2000) argues: Conversational planning, on the other hand, is a continuous and iterative process. Expert teachers continue to plan and evaluate while they are teaching and they are prepared to explore alternative routes if they find themselves diverted by an unexpected response from the children, but they do not simply 69 Carmen Beatriz de Gonzalez et al abandon their intentions and follow where the children lead. Instead of assuming that children are not yet ready to take an active part in their learning, these teachers recognize that they can help children to develop a confident voice, to become active rather than passive learners. (Parker-Rees, 2000, p. 34) A second outcome is to lend our support to the view of Gore & Zeichner (1991) that the purposes of action research – practical, technical and emancipatory – should be seen as perspectives of an action. We can sometimes simultaneously enact these purposes, rather than see them as hierarchical levels. Our final outcome relates to our learning. These do not necessarily occur with scheduled planning or teaching times. They often grow, again in a conversational way, over a variety of timescales and sometimes in unexpected ways, as a result of explicit and tacit reflection. We are then able to use this learning, not only as an analysis of the past, but as a guide to our present and, more importantly, our future actions. Acknowledgements We would like to thank UPEL for the invitation and financial support for this event, Geisha Rebolledo for her untiring efforts to mount the workshop, the British Council for a travel grant to CR, and John Bentley, Paula Godkin and Thomas Popkewitz for their insightful comments on our writing. Correspondence Dr Charly Ryan, School of Education, King Alfred’s College, Winchester SO22 4NR, United Kingdom (c.ryan@wkac.ac.uk) References Anderson, G.L. & Montero-Smith, M. (1998) Educational Qualitative Research in Latin America: the struggle for a new paradigm. New York: Taylor & Francis. Atkinson, S. (1994) Rethinking the Principles and Practice of Action Research: the tensions for the teacher researcher, Educational Action Research, 2, pp. 383-402. Barrientos, J. (2000) Evaluación de la Investigación en la Universidad Pedagógica Experimental Libertador. Caracas: UPEL Mimeo. Bell, B. (1993) Taking into Account Students’ Thinking: a teacher development guide. Hamilton: University of Waikato. Carr, W. & Kemmis, S. (1986) Becoming Critical: education, knowledge and action research. London: Falmer Press. Callewaert, S. (1999) Philosophy of education, Frankfurt critical theory, and the sociology of Pierre Bourdieu, in T. Popkewitz & L. Fendler (Eds) Critical Theories in Education: changing terrains of knowledge and politics. New York: Routledge. 70 PLANNING AS ACTION RESEARCH Dadds, M. (2002) Taking Curiosity Seriously: the role of awe and Wanda in research based professionalism, Educational Action Research, 10, pp. 9-26. Dinan, J. & García, Y. (1991) Participatory Enquiry, in C. O’Hanlon (Ed.) CARN Publication 10A. Norwich: University of East Anglia. Eldredge, N. (1995) Reinventing Darwin. New York: Wiley. Elliott, J. (1991) Action Research for Educational Change. London: Falmer Press. Freire, P. (1986) Pedagogy of the Oppressed. New York: Continuum. Gerhardt, H-P. (1993) Paulo Freire Prospects: the quarterly review of comparative education, 23, pp. 439-458. Paris: UNESCO, International Bureau of Education. Gore, J.M. & Zeichner, K.M. (1991) Action Research and Reflective Teaching in Preservice Teacher Education: a case study from the United States, Teaching and Teacher Education, 7, pp. 119-136. Grundy, S. (1987) Curriculum: product or praxis? Lewes: Falmer Press. Harland, T. & Staniforth, D. (2000) Action Research: a culturally acceptable path to professional learning for university teachers? Educational Action Research, 8, pp. 499-514. Iser, W. (1993) The Fictive and the Imaginary. London: Johns Hopkins University Press. Lomax, P. & Parker, Z. (1995) Accounting for Ourselves: the problematics of representing action research, Cambridge Journal of Education, 25, pp. 301-314. McNiff, J., Lomax, P. & Whitehead, J. (1996) You and Your Action Research Project. London: Routledge. Parker Rees, R. (2000) Time to Relax a Little: making time for the interplay of minds in education, Education 3-13, 28, March, pp. 29-35. Popkewitz, T. (1998) Struggling for the Soul: the politics of schooling and the construction of the teacher. New York: Teachers College Press. Price, J.N. (2001) Action Research Pedagogy and Change: the transformative potential of action research in pre-service teacher education, Journal of Curriculum Studies, 33, pp. 43-74. Sinnott, J.D. (1992) Teaching in a Chaotic New Physics World: teaching as a dialogue with reality, in P. Kahaney, L.A.M. Perry & J. Janangelo (Eds) Theoretical and Critical Perspectives on Teacher Change. Norwood: Ablex. Teacher Training Agency (2002) Best Practice Research Scholarships. Available at: www.teachernet.gov.uk/_doc/1131/BPRS-Guidance.doc (accessed 8 August 2002). Zeichner, K. (2000) Educational Action Research, in P. Reason & H. Bradbury (Eds) Handbook of Action Research: participative inquiry and practice. London: Sage. 71 Carmen Beatriz de Gonzalez et al APPENDIX 1 What have I learnt about action research? Strategies related to work in the classroom and to the process of research. What is implied by an interactive group project. Important concepts: how to write a diary, how to analyse a data set, how to process information, how to design a project and how to set it up in the initial stages. Some key concepts like how to analyse a recording, how to design a project, how to use a journal, how to evaluate projects. It’s a way to give an explanation of, and cause a transformation in the educational act. It seems to me to have been a very interesting experience for my personal and professional development. I have learnt that I can apply this knowledge to other areas of action such as the community, education, health, and organisation. I must investigate more. I’ve learnt to strengthen my communicative relations and to be part of an action research network. To understand action research better. • That it’s possible to strengthen communication links and be part of a network. • To develop my knowledge. The most important aspect of my learning has been to be aware (concientizar) that research must interest the participants. It reinforced the importance of values in action research; this is evident in the discourse and praxis of Jim and Charly. Almost everything, as my initial knowledge was so low (incipiente) ... Now I understand its importance and its value. I’ve strengthened my knowledge of action research. Basic knowledge that I didn’t have before. To involve myself with the subjects of the research in order to achieve a change in the teaching-learning process. 72 PLANNING AS ACTION RESEARCH Procedures for analysing data. The relevance of action research as a methodology aimed at solving socioeducational problems. That action research is a pertinent method to study social reality, educational reality. Analysis of texts • To begin research without a predetermined order • To give more time to actions than to thought. • To investigate the obvious. Praxis in discourse analysis. • To produce an action research project in an afternoon and half a morning. • Another way to plan. Discourse analysis • To use time in an efficient way like producing an action research project in a day. • Another way to do action research. To read and analyse information about action research. The final feedback • The workshop captivated me. I learnt so much. APPENDIX 2 As a teacher, what change have you undergone as a result of this workshop? To make the process more collaborative, experienced (vivencial) and practical. Example: analyse an action research project which is in progress or already completed. The way the workshop was facilitated for me was significant. More time to codify and categorise [data]. That is to put into practice more. In the context of the workshop, they couldn't have done it better. They were very clear in their ideas, specific, always trying to give the best of themselves. To take part in teams in a reflection on epistemological and theoretical aspects of action research. 73 Carmen Beatriz de Gonzalez et al Read and analyse information about action research. The acquisition of new knowledge of the process of action research logically, this is a change. Understanding that through action research I can improve my pedagogic practice. I tried to put into practice one precept: to learn to listen and to be open to what others say, and for me this was very satisfying, I got many interesting ideas from the others. I could understand that there is a multiplicity of problematic situations that can be dealt with through action research. I could internalise the process. I've learnt the importance of group interaction to achieve new learning. Every day you've got to learn something. These three days have been vital for that. The acquisition of new knowledge always generates change. I've lots of motivation to get started on action research. To allow the students to work with freedom and developing motivation and a positive attitude. I have reconciled myself with the idea of carrying out an investigation. Yes, to see that I have to go beyond what I can see, the simple appearance is not enough. That I can make mistakes and can give myself permission to make mistakes. I have experienced in my sense or judgment the commitment that I have as a person that I can help to transform myself and share that transformation. I have taken account of the investigative act, its importance for the development of the educator and I want to share my experience with others. The experience I have lived makes me reflect on my actions in the classroom. As well, to recognise the importance of listening to ideas which are contrary to mine. My change is directed towards the redimensioning and my vision of work in the classroom. 74 PLANNING AS ACTION RESEARCH I've become aware of the flexibility that you can have in the classroom in the process of action research. I assumed for myself the role in the classroom and in the community: solver not generator of problems. Reflecting and incorporating in my educational practice: • Imagined situations • Benefiting from dialogue. To incorporate the lived experiences of human interaction in the workshop. Yes. To see other ways of presenting AR projects. Looking through the window. Imagining individual situations, as a group. Knowing about experiences and experimentation. Taking part. I think it is a marvellous experience, always and when you handle the information to match the educator's intentions. You have to read and investigate and above all carry out actions and see the outcomes. 75 Carmen Beatriz de Gonzalez et al 76