Recent Posts
- Group 2 – Article 8: Fostering Inclusivity Through Teaching and Learning Action Research
- Group 1 – Article 8: Fostering Inclusivity Through Teaching and Learning Action Research
- Group 1 – Article 7: The Cyclical Process of Action Research
- Group 2 – Article 7: The Cyclical Process of Action Research
- Group 2 – Article 6: Critical Literacy for School Improvement: An Action Research Project
Globally there is a gap in achievement between schools in lower socioeconomic areas and higher socioeconomic areas. Many times children from lower socioeconomic areas are not exposed at young age to literacy, which could be one of the reasons in developing a gap between children. I found the article Critical Literacy for School Improvement: an Action Research Project interesting and relatable. The literacy gap is a problem that has been important to me since the start of my teaching career. As a Kindergarten teacher, I see first hand how early exposure to literacy skills truly makes a difference. Due to this known and crucial problem happening in the world, the article highlights an urban elementary school in Canada that has applied a three-year action research project to “identify Critical thinking skills and investigate what Critical Literacy would look like in their classrooms” in their school (Cooper & White, 2008, p. 101). The school’s hope is that by exposing children to pedagogy that contains Critical Literacy it will allow students and teachers to experience success and growth with regards to literacy.
The action research project had different phases and initiatives. The first was to hire different literacy support staff in order to help the students and teachers during this project. Secondly was to acquire baseline literacy scores on the students through the DSA. As they began the early stages of the project the biggest problem that surfaced was defining what critical thinking and critical literacy is. I found this to be interesting because many times in education we use buzz words like these, but educators a lot of times are not truly sure what these theories should look like in the classroom. However, as the teachers began to apply different programs that support critical literacy they soon began to have a better understanding and meaning of these terms.
There were a few things that stood out to me as I read this article. First was the make up of the research team. The research team encompassed the co-authors of the article. One was a literacy coordinator and the other was a literacy consultant. Later, two third grade teachers at the elementary school joined the team. The role of the research team was to be facilitators to help foster Critical Literacy in the school. While I think it is important to have teachers on the research team, I was surprised that they only had two teachers from the same grade level. It could be the cause that it was difficult to help understand, support and relate to all the teachers.
The second thing that stood out to me was the dedication that the school has for professional development. The reason why the action research project was three years long was because the administration at the school truly wanted the teachers to be supported and be provided with new ideas and different approaches in order to provide Critical Literacy to the students. On going professional development is vital when there is a new approach at a school. I have experienced many times that my administrators want me to add a different curriculum or approach to my classroom, but do not give me ongoing professional development to foster my understanding of it.
The final element in the article that made me think was the idea of having all the teachers take part and “buy-in” to the action research project. Like anything, the article explains that results will come if teachers take pride and are dedicated to the project. That is why action research is so powerful. At first, not all the teachers wanted to participate in the project and even some transferred schools, but once the project continued the article shows that all the teachers were in support and excited about the initiative.
While I think what this school did was wonderful and shows how action research really can make a difference, I am curious if making it a school wide initiative at the beginning was the correct model. I am interested if you all agree with me and think if maybe there should have been a pilot group? Such as one class per grade level or just K and 1 and then adding two grades each year? I am thinking their model could be a problem for two reasons. First, how did all the teachers in all the grades truly get the support and resources they needed, as they created large change to their pedagogy. Secondly, due to many teachers being involved I wonder how strong the validity is in the research study was? However, this project is a positive project that provided a strong curriculum for students and faced a crucial problem in our society. I feel that it seemed to also hold teachers accountable and helped them become enthused in their practice. This article is another example of how action research is possible in the classroom!
I liked this article because it presented a very clear and realistic example of the amount of structure required to execute a school action research project. It was helpful for me to see the project’s purposes, objectives, and methods clearly articulated at the onset of the study. I can tell that a great deal of time went into formulating these guidelines collaboratively. It was also helpful to understand the observed implications of time, professional development, and school-wide collaboration. By explaining these early plans and later implications, the article clearly shows how Action Research differs from the unstructured observations and reflections made by teachers in their daily practice. Maddy brings up an interesting question about starting school action research with the use of a piolet group. I see both pros and cons to this approach. Supporting a study would be more manageable in its infancy by starting with a smaller group. Also, in subsequent years, other teachers may be likely to buy-in to the idea if they have proof that it has already provided benefit within the context of their school. On that same note, I was very surprised that in taking an initial school-wide approach, this administration was willing to let non-supportive teacher’s transfer. My school would definitely not have this option available nor choose to let someone go for only this reason. Conversely, using a small piolet group may also hurt the collaborative nature of action research. Non-piolet teachers may feel left out of important decision making. Study observations might also become too focused on just the perspectives of the piolet teachers involved.
Madeline, you did a great job of summarizing the article and raised an interesting question. I agree that an initial pilot group might have been easier in certain ways, although I am in favor of the initial school-wide approach. If you have a school that is failing, and there is evidence about benefits from certain practices, I think it is wonderful to just go all out. You may be correct about concerns over support, but perhaps the reality of school-wide commitment makes up for that in some way? It was interesting that they let non-supportive teachers transfer. I do wonder if this could have caused any problems, or negative feelings. Still, it does emphasize the school’s commitment, which must have been encouraging for those involved.
First of all, Madeline, I think you did a great job of providing a synopsis of the article and the action research project. I do think that this is an important topic in education as I have seen the literacy gap first hand. I also thought the points you brought up hit the nail on the head. To be honest, even though I thought this topic and the project was important, I did not particularly enjoy reading this article for one of the reasons you brought up. You talked about the issue of buzz words, and as I was reading this article I found myself constantly wanting more information about what these researchers really meant by critical literacy. This is something I have a hard time with in our profession in general. There are so many buzz words or jargon, and I personally feel that it is too common for educators to be communicating and thinking that they are on the same page when in reality they are not. One person’s understanding of a concept is often very different than another person’s, and in general I don’t think we do a good enough job of communicating these different ideas. Sadly, this can often negatively affect our students whether directly or indirectly. To address your question, I do think it would have been better to start with a couple of grade levels at a time rather than making it a school wide initiative for the very reasons you brought up. There’s no perfect or fool proof way to decide who is included when. However, I would say for ethical reasons I think it would be better to divide it up by full grade-levels as opposed to a couple of classes at each grade-level because the other classes in those grade-levels could then be at a disadvantage.
Madeline, nice job summarizing and reflecting on this article. Rachel, Chris, and Lindsey, I enjoyed reading your comments. I personally really appreciate how “aggressively” this school took action on improving the literacy program in their school. The sheer fact that these students are described as “at risk” is enough in my mind to demand action, even if the action involves trying something new. If the program were piloted in just one class, would this mean that the students in the other classes would be stuck with another year of a program that clearly isn’t working? In my opinion, not taking action when you know something doesn’t work is worse than ensuring a new program has been subject to adequate testing. In response to the group’s discussion on the vague terminology surrounding critical literacy, reading this caused me to think back to Chris’ first post on the Action Research article. We talked a lot about how the language surrounding the field was “lofty” and unclear. This seems to be a recurring concern, since by default any terms that aren’t clearly measurable can run the risk of being subject of multiple, or unclear definitions. Perhaps the only potential solution for this is for researchers to be very clear in their own personal definitions and understandings of concepts they reference, and it seems that in this particular article the researchers did not adequately do so.