Chapter 10

Action Research

No action without research, no research without action

–Kurt Lewin (1946)

Introduction

Of all the methodologies that have, thus far, been discussed between the pages of
this volume, perhaps none is more practical than action research. In fact, it is often
referred to as “practitioner research,” “teacher research’ or “participatory action
research.” Herr and Anderson (2005) claim that action researchers may occupy mul-
tiple positions, even simultaneously, as insiders and/or outsiders, depending on
social or ideological constructs such as race, religion, political affiliation, social
class, gender or sexual orientation. These affiliations (or exclusions) may also sig-
nificantly influence the reality as captured through action research. As such, action
researchers may greatly benefit from interrogating and identifying their multiple
positionalites in order to understand and articulate tensions stemming from underly-
ing roles and stances, and to “avoid the blind spots that come with unexamined
beliefs” (Herr & Anderson, 2005, p. 44).
While appellations such as “practitioner research,” “teacher research’ or “partici-
patory action research” may not be entirely interchangeable, the names, themselves,
remain strong indicators of the process by which action research may be performed or
accomplished. Sagor (2000) identifies three distinct, yet compatible purposes for
action research; developing the reflective practitioner and action researcher, research-
ing and gaining knowledge regarding school, hospital or institutional priorities and
building professional learning cultures or “communities of practice” (Wenger, 1999).

Supplementary Information The online version contains supplementary material available at

[https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-85124-8_10]. The videos can be accessed individually by
clicking the DOI link in the accompanying figure caption or by scanning this link with the SN
More Media App.

© The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature 387

Switzerland AG 2022
R. E. White, K. Cooper, Qualitative Research in the Post-Modern Era,
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-85124-8_10
388 10 Action Research

Meyer (2000) maintains that action research’s strength lies in its focus on generating
solutions to practical problems and its ability to empower practitioners by getting them
to engage with research and its ensuing development or implementation activities. At its
core, action research strives to create transformational change by simultaneously engag-
ing in change strategies while taking action based on those strategies. The glue that
holds these two disparate functions together is critical reflection. According to Burns
(2015), action research is the “superordinate term for a set of approaches to research
which, at the same time, systematically investigate a given social situation and promote
democratic change and collaborative participation” (p. 99).
In order to address issues of democracy within the action research project, Meyer
(2000) suggests that participants be seen as equals and that the researcher works to
facilitate change. Participants and researcher consult not only on the action process,
itself, but also on how that process will be evaluated. An important benefit to this is
that the research process and outcomes become more meaningful to practitioners
because findings are returned to participants for validation and outcomes are based
in the reality of their daily practice. As Meyer (2000) maintains, because action
research draws on a practitioner’s situation and experience, it can generate findings
meaningful to researchers and participants. Because of this, contributions to knowl-
edge that arise from action research are different from other, more conventional
forms of research. Thus, it is important that action researchers describe their work
in rich contextual detail (Meyer, 2000).
The impetus for action research is a perceived gap or problem between actuality
and the participants’ desire for change. Instead of viewing participants and/or their
behaviours as problems, however, the term “problematic” reflects a desire on the
part of participants to “problematize” a given situation through questioning, clarify-
ing, understanding and providing meaning. Consequently, action researchers can be
viewed as change agents “interested in resolving, reformulating or refining dilem-
mas, predicaments or puzzles in their daily lives through systematic planning, data-
gathering, reflection and further informed action” (Burns, 2015, p. 100). Researchers
simultaneously become critical participants in the action while they are also
researchers of the action, thus making action research both an exploratory procedure
and a decision-generating process (Burns, 2015). Needless to say, given the param-
eters of this type of research, one’s epistemological and ontological views may
influence one’s research as well as the chosen research methods (Koshy, 2010). As
a general caveat, Guba and Lincoln (1990) remind researchers that, when conduct-
ing research of any kind, considering one’s philosophical stance or worldview
remains important.
While action research can be initiated by individual researchers, it may also be
undertaken by organizations or institutions, assisted or guided by professional
researchers to improve strategies, practices and knowledge of environments within
which they practice. As designers and stakeholders, researchers may also work with
others to propose new courses of action to help their communities improve work
practices (O’Brien, 2001). In this sense, action research is not necessarily “critical”
in terms of transforming social issues, but may become so should the society, as a
whole or in part, benefit from the research. Reason and Bradbury (2001) refer to this
as “living knowledge” (p. 2).
The Biographical Context 389

Action researchers strive to reflect critically upon their actions and practices, as
well as their beliefs, assumptions and questions, in order to understand and improve
social practices (Boog et al., 1996). As such, action research tends to be oriented
towards social issues and, hence, becomes a critical practice, designed to create
three levels of change (Chisholm, & Elden, 1993); the first of these is the research-
er’s own transformation as a result of performing the research, the second is the
collective process of understanding change within a particular institution through
creating a democratic sharing of voice, and the third is the process of sharing find-
ings with the community of researchers.

The Biographical Context

One of the major contributors to the development of action research is Emeritus

Professor Stephen Kemmis. Professor Kemmis was interviewed at the University of
Illinois in Urbana-Champaign, where he was visiting a long-time friend and associate,
Professor Robert Stake. At first, it may strike one as unusual that the developers of two
very powerful, albeit very different, qualitative research methodologies would be so
closely connected. Perhaps, however, the reason is not only obvious but it is found
through historical and geographical roots, as both men arrived in the same place at the
same time but with differing agendas vis-à-vis their commitments to qualitative research.
In the following video-clip, Professor Kemmis talks about his early years and his
developing interest in social issues, the nature of which spurred his interest in what
was to become action research.

Emeritus Professor Stephen Kemmis

390 10 Action Research

As Professor Kemmis notes, he grew up in Sydney, Australia, in a comfortable mid-

dle-class society. Due to his father’s interest in matters of social justice, particularly as it
pertained to the consideration for others, large or small, young Stephen internalized this
appreciation for fairness and reflection that later gestated into a recognition of the need
for greater equity within society. While his father was fairly agnostic, young Stephen’s
mother and his older siblings were religious. Although Stephen did not view himself as
Christian, he internalized his father’s social justice perspectives.
As was common at the time, Stephen attended an all-boys private school, where he
showed promise, even though he did not like school. These two influences, his father’s
sense of fairness and consideration, and Stephen’s own dislike of schooling, eventu-
ally were to come together in a recognizable form—action research. In school, young
Stephen felt bored, uncomfortable and insecure. However, rather than internalizing
this and supposing that he might be the source of the problem, young Kemmis took a
more forward-thinking approach and decided that it was the school that required ref-
ormation, not the students. Part of his issue with schooling was with the teachers and
the authoritarian way in which the students were treated. Although many of the teach-
ers made little impact on young Stephen’s academic prowess, there were some who
did have a great influence on his learning and understanding of the world.
It was during this time that Stephen discovered the guitar and folk music which, in
turn, led him to singing protest songs about the then devastating Vietnam War
(1955–1975). Although he considered his music to be an avocation, he realized that
university would play a dominant role in his future life and, in his own words,
“scraped” into the University of Sydney. Here, he claims, he continued his fascination
with the guitar and folk music. This was, in large part, due to the burgeoning civil
rights movement in the United States, which affected Australian social life in major
ways. Professor Kemmis describes this as a formative experience for him, at the time.

Video Clip 10.1: Emeritus Professor Stephen Kemmis

(▶ https://doi.org/10.1007/000-6dc)
The Historical Context 391

Another considerable influence on young Kemmis was the growth of the wom-
en’s movement toward the end of the Vietnam War. Even as the feminist spirit began
to gain ground at the University of Sydney, Stephen Kemmis notes that it was an
uphill battle, due to a very masculinist culture in Australia. Although he was a ben-
eficiary of this culture, young Stephen was quick to realize that men and women
were treated very differently in the universities, as well as in the general society. For
example, capable males were quick to move ahead while women, no matter how
gifted, were less likely to make their mark in academia and, instead, were more
frequently consigned to the role of tutor, as it was not expected that they would
become academics. Unequal and unjust as it may be, this was a prevalent attitude
around the globe, as women were expected to marry and become mothers and
everyone, more or less, was secure in the knowledge that this was as much as any
self-respecting woman could hope for. Fortunately, times have
changed—somewhat.
As a result of these influences and despite his significant privilege, combined
with the reality of being in the “right place” at the right time, Professor Kemmis
remained troubled by the inequity and inequality of the times. He claims that these
formative experiences did not arrive without an emotional impact and that this was
his crucible, from which he emerged a better person, particularly in terms of social
justice initiatives. This repudiation, he notes, helped nurture his interest not only in
terms of social justice but also in interpreting and understanding social and histori-
cal events, and, eventually, in developing an interest in educational research, as well.

The Historical Context

Educational research is a vast topic and, as such, it is action research that is of prime
interest, particularly as it relates to this chapter. There have been numerous influ-
ences on action research over the years. Typically, action research can be viewed as
three broad movements that have taken place during the last 60 years. These are the
technical-scientific model, which comprises a technically motivated, stepwise pro-
cess that seeks basic improvements to researchers’ practice; the practical-
deliberative model, which is also a solution-oriented approach, but with application
to morally problematic situations; and the critical-emancipatory model, an empow-
ering approach embedded in critical theory that addresses broader socially consti-
tuted educational structures at the local level (Burns, 2015).
Action research originated with the work of innumerable different scholars from
so many different backgrounds that “there is no single generally accepted narrative
of its origins” (Charles & Ward, 2007, p. 2). However, John Dewey and Kurt Lewin
were key to establishing the foundations of action research. John Dewey
(1859–1952), an educational philosopher, viewed experiences as constant interac-
tions between people; these experiences were not stagnant but constantly changing
(Maksimovic, 2010). Dewey also made significant contributions to the structure of
action research, even though his “demystification, domestication and
392 10 Action Research

democratization of the scientific method was a direct challenge to the professional-

ization of research” (McTaggart, 1991, p. 2).
According to Koshy (2010), Kurt Lewin researched extensively on social issues,
and is considered a founding father of action research as a methodology. Lewin’s
work was followed by that of Stephen Corey, and others in the United States, who
applied action research to educational issues. One of the most influential proponents
of action research in the United Kingdom was Lawrence Stenhouse (1926–1982),
who endorsed action research for studying the theory and practice of teaching, ped-
agogy and curriculum. Stenhouse’s “central message for teachers was that they
should regard themselves as researchers, as the best judges of their own practice and
then the natural corollary would be an improvement of education” (McNiff, 1988,
p. 25). As it evolved, educational action researchers, such as John Elliott (1991),
have also influenced action researchers in healthcare settings. Following is an all-
too-brief summary of some of the scholars who have influenced the course of action
research over the past decades.
Kurt Lewin (1890–1947), a German American psychologist, became known as a
developer and promoter of organizational and applied psychology. Lewin contrib-
uted to the development of action research, as well as applied research and group
communication. It was Lewin who coined the term “action research” in 1944. He is
frequently recognized, along with Margaret Mead, as a founder of social psychol-
ogy (Haggbloom et al., 2002; Owens & Valesky, 2015). Originally, Lewin studied
behavioural psychology prior to engaging with the “gestalt” school of psychology
and the Psychological Institute of Berlin, lecturing on philosophy and psychology
until 1933, when he emigrated to the United States (Smith, 2001). Eventually, as
director for Group Dynamics at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, when
asked to explore ways to combat religious and racial prejudice, he conducted a
“change” experiment, thus laying the foundations for sensitivity training (Lasch-
Quinn, 2017; Owens & Valesky, 2015). Kurt Lewin went on to assist in the founding
of the Tavistock journal, Human Relations, which is still in publication through
Sage Journals.
Lewin proposed the interactionism formula, B = ƒ(P, E), to explain how both
nature and nurture interact to explain behavioural patterns (Forsyth, 2019; Owens &
Valesky, 2015). As an applied researcher, Lewin eventually coined the term, action
research (Lewin, 1946, 1948; Owens & Valesky, 2015; Rogers, 1994), describ-
ing it as
‘a comparative research on the conditions and effects of various forms of social action and
research leading to social action’ that uses ‘a spiral of steps, each of which is composed of
a circle of planning, action, and fact-finding about the result of the action.’ (O’Brien, 2001)

Lewin’s “force field analysis” approach to social situations, in which understand-

ing one’s life space derives from individual perceptions of reality, rather than from
an objective viewpoint, was a significant contribution to the social sciences, particu-
larly psychology, organizational development, and management (Lewin, 1943;
Owens & Valesky, 2015).
The Historical Context 393

An early model of change, often ascribed to Lewin, is characterized as a three-

stage process, involving “unfreezing,” “changing” and “(re)freezing.” When faced
with a dilemma, the individual or group senses a need to change, or “unfreeze,” in
order to overcome inertia and dismantle existing mindsets. “Changing” occurs as
the dilemma or situation is diagnosed and new models of behaviour are explored
and tested. This is typically a period of confusion and transition, before entering the
third and final stage, called “freezing,” (Lewin, 1947) or “refreezing” (Owens &
Valesky, 2015), where the new mindset or new behaviour is evaluated and, if
approved, it is adopted. At this stage the new “way” begins to crystallize and is
routinized as comfort levels begin to return to previously established levels.
Although Lewin’s three-step process is regarded as foundational for creating change
in organizations, Cummings, Bridgman and Brown (2016) assert that Lewin did not
develop this model and it actually formed following his death from a massive heart
attack in 1947. Fig. 10.1 illustrates Lewin’s original model of action research.
Jürgen Habermas (1929–2007) was a German sociologist and philosopher,
associated with the Frankfurt School, known for his theories on communicative
rationality in the public sphere. Habermas, a critical theorist, was primarily con-
cerned with the creation of a political philosophy, based on recognizing the com-
municative capacities of rational human beings (Weng, 2014). Born with a cleft
palate, Jürgen Habermas affirmed that this invoked his interest regarding the impor-
tance of communication (Clifford Simplican, 2009). Habermas studied philosophy
and sociology under critical theorists Max Horkheimer and Theodor Adorno, influ-
ential philosophers associated with the Frankfurt School.
Habermas’s thesis comprised a detailed social history of bourgeois society from
its origins up to its transformation through capitalist mass media (Calhoun, 2002).
Habermas eventually became Director of the Max Planck Institute in Munich and,
later, returned to Frankfurt as Director of the Institute for Social Research. He was

Fig. 10.1 Kurt Lewin’s Action Research Model. (Lewin, 1958)

394 10 Action Research

presented with the Prince of Asturias Award in 2003. This is an annual prize awarded
to individuals or organizations from around the world, who make notable achieve-
ments in the sciences, humanities or public affairs.
Habermas constructed a comprehensive framework of philosophy and social
theory, drawn from a variety of scholarly traditions. However, his major contribu-
tion, inspired by such luminaries as Ludwig Wittgenstein, George Herbert Mead,
Jean Piaget and others, remains his development of the concept and theory of com-
municative rationality that promotes the objective of human emancipation. Calhoun
(2002) notes that Habermas’s work can be situated within the traditions of Kant and
the Enlightenment. While he has cited the Enlightenment, an intellectual and philo-
sophical movement in Europe spanning the 17th to 19th centuries, as an “unfinished
project” (Calhoun, 2002, p. 351), Habermas claims it must be corrected and com-
plemented, rather than being discarded. This is a deviation from the accepted rheto-
ric of the Frankfurt School and today’s postmodern stance in that Habermas critiques
these more recent positions due to their perceived pessimism, radicalism and hyper-
bole (Calhoun, 2002). Habermas’s defense of modernity and civility is a major
philosophical alternative to poststructuralism. Habermas believes that, while com-
municative competence has evolved through time, in contemporary society it has
been suppressed and weakened by neoliberal thought to the extent that the logic of
the “system” supplants that of the lifeworld (Calhoun, 2002).
In his book, The Structural Transformation of the Public Sphere (1991),
Habermas sought to expose the deceptive nature of “free” institutions in the West
(Blanning, 1998). This erosion of the public sphere was due, in part at least, to the
development of mass media, which transformed a critical public into consumers,
and the welfare state, which merged state and society so thoroughly as to turn the
public sphere into self-interested competition (Habermas, 1985, 1991). He claims
that democracy cannot develop in public life unless important issues are discussed
by the citizenry (Calhoun, 2002; Habermas, 1985). Such a course of action requires
an “ideal speech situation” (Habermas, 1985; Payrow Shabani, 2003, p. 49), where
participants have similar capacities of discourse and social equality, where the com-
munication is just and true, in that it is not infused with ideology, and is error-free
(Calhoun, 2002; Habermas, 1985).
Paulo Freire (1921–1997), a leading advocate for critical pedagogy, is renowned for
his foundational text, Pedagogy of the Oppressed (1970/2000). Freire espoused that
there is no neutrality in education; that it is, at its heart, intensely political, facilitating
either conformity at one end of the educational spectrum, or freedom, at the other end.
Freire’s philosophy of education incorporated Platonic and Marxist perspectives, and
emphasized the necessity of championing the provision of education to allow marginal-
ized minorities to improve their plight by playing a role in their own liberation.
Freire recognized that education of any sort is intensely political, especially
since teaching and learning comprise political acts in terms of what is taught, how
it is taught, what and how things are learned, and for what purpose. Thus, students
and teachers, alike, must recognize the political nature of education (Kincheloe,
2008). In order to accomplish this, however, teachers must become aware of their
own pedagogy. In so doing, teachers need to reconsider how the “transmission
Stephen Kemmis and Action Research 395

model,” also known as the “banking model,” of education commodifies learning and
inhibits the creativity of students. This banking model assumes that the teacher has
an arcane body of knowledge that is transferrable, intact, to the student, who is
viewed as being devoid of knowledge. The work of Paulo Freire echoed John
Dewey’s (1897/2019) critique of the transmission of mere facts as the goal of educa-
tion, placed it within the context of contemporary theories and practices of educa-
tion, and laid the foundation for what would later become critical pedagogy.
Paulo Freire also developed and promoted participatory action research (PAR),
built upon his concept of critical pedagogy, thus creating a methodology that allows
for significant intervention, change and development within and among groups and
communities, most notably among education and health care (Koshy, 2010).
Participatory action research has found its way into a variety of community organi-
zations, development agencies and universities, locally, nationally and internation-
ally (Rahman, 2008). Viewed as a response to the “transmission model” of education,
participatory action research was further developed in adult education in Colombia,
through the work of Orlando Fals-Borda (Fals-Borda & Rahman, 1991). This form
of research will be expanded upon further in this chapter.

Stephen Kemmis and Action Research

According to Professor Stephen Kemmis, the beginnings of action research, for him,
began with his meeting and developing friendship with Robert Stake (see Chap. 7), an
individual who was instrumental to the development of case study research.

Video Clip 10.2: Emeritus Professor Stephen Kemmis

(▶ https://doi.org/10.1007/000-6db)
396 10 Action Research

Professor Robert Stake, at this point, had been deeply involved in transactional
psychology at Princeton University and had written a brilliant doctoral thesis on
psychometrics and parameters of learning curves as measures of intelligence.
Interestingly enough, this meeting between Stephen Kemmis and Robert Stake
seemed to occur just as the latter was losing faith with psychometrics and was
searching for new methodological endeavours. Stephen Kemmis was searching
beyond statistics and exploring how people, social groups and even societies can be
understood in a more qualitative way.
Having grown up through an empiricist positivist view of science, Professor
Kemmis claims this was a massive departure from the way he, and society in gen-
eral, understood reality. This question, for Stephen Kemmis, was profoundly philo-
sophical because he was also questioning his own directions and was considering
whether evaluation of any sort that does not involve self-evaluation can be consid-
ered scientific. Professor Kemmis uses the metaphor of having the furniture of his
brain moved around, aptly symbolic of the magnitude of this process. As things
were juggled and pushed aside, he notes, the experience was wonderfully liberating.
Learning is like this. In order for new knowledge to rest comfortably alongside
established knowledge, an entire process of schema shifting takes place. The first
movement is the creation of cognitive dissonance, where the individual is con-
fronted with new information that contradicts previously held information, not
unlike Sir Karl Popper’s notion of rational fallibility, where a new theory must
replace an older one that no longer explains a construct accurately. Much learning
is incremental, so large shifts in thinking are not entirely common, although they do
occur periodically. As Professor Kemmis attests, he has had such an experience
perhaps half a dozen times in his life, the outcome of which is to relinquish a current
worldview in order to access a new reality.
In order to gain a deeper understanding of this new perspective on the world,
Professor Kemmis began delving into Wittgenstein (1889–1951), the Austrian phi-
losopher who worked in the area of language and logic (Monk, 1992). Reading
Wittgenstein represented yet another assault on Kemmis’s, by now, archaic view of
the world. It was, in his own words, “another massive challenge to my accepted
ways of understanding the world.” And, it was at this juncture that, while at the
University of East Anglia, Stephen began to ponder questions of theory and practice.
Always interested in the creation of a just society, Professor Kemmis notes that
was what the War in Vietnam was supposed to be about. A just society, he avers, is
also about authenticity in governmental policy making; unmaking decisions that
have been made by governments, both past and present, that lead to obfuscation and
opacity, ultimately leading the citizenry to misread and to misunderstand the society
within which they live. Thus, a great nagging doubt became replaced by a great nag-
ging question—could there be a science that could accomplish exactly this?
The answer to this question arrived in the form of Wilfred Carr, a long-time
friend and associate. Professor Kemmis replaced Wilfred Carr at Deakin University,
upon the former’s return to Australia. Together, they conceived and published a
book about action research in education. Using Jürgen Habermas’s theory of human
interest as a foundation for this volume, Becoming Critical: Education Knowledge
The Political Context 397

and Action Research, first published in 1986, turned out to have a huge impact that
surprised both of its authors, and has never been out of print since its first publish-
ing. It is an odd circumstance for a book to have such a lengthy history and Professor
Kemmis concedes that it may be somewhat dated, as a similar book, written today,
would have to be a completely different sort of book, although it would still contain
the transition between what passes as theory and what constitutes knowledge.
Educational research, in general, and action research, in particular, constitute tech-
nical patterns or models that assist in the resolution of problems, issues and proce-
dures. In addition to this, Professor Kemmis confirms, there is much educational
research of a very practical nature that strives to inform, illuminate and educate.
Altogether, these kinds of research, such as action research or case study research to
mention but a few, serve to bring people’s lives into the light.
In general, qualitative research strives to engage what Professor Kemmis refers
to as “otherness,” the observation of oneself in relation to others, an intersubjective
experience. Through this reaching out and engagement with others, it may become
possible to make sense, to understand, to interpret the world and one another, some-
thing that Stephen Kemmis claims to be completely incomprehensible to “a positiv-
istic, behaviouristic, empiricist social science.”

The Political Context

Action research may be viewed as a markedly political methodology with respect to

the collaborative and democratic means through which it may be carried out, its
utility to challenge or re-inscribe traditional power hierarchies, and its contempo-
rary social justice and educational goals. Griffiths (2009) argues that action research,
with respect to social justice, a complex cluster of related concepts that include
redistribution, action, provisionality, locality, voice, recognition, and fluid identi-
ties, forms a coherent way of understanding the world. It is, thus, a moral and/or
political obligation for action researchers to address the aspect of social justice in
their research endeavours. In its most democratic form, action research disrupts
hierarchical relationships by destabilizing historically established positionalities of
the researcher, as well as the subjects of research. Participatory action research
(PAR) for example, according to Herr and Anderson (2005), is done by “true col-
laborations among insiders and outsiders” (p. 30). However, as Herr and Anderson
also point out, PAR can raise important questions about how knowledge is vali-
dated, and how power and control over the research process is distributed.
Herr and Anderson (2005) attest that action research emerged from the work of
Kurt Lewin into the group dynamics movement of the 1940s. Here, it maintained an
implicit political agenda due to its insistence on worker participation because action
research critiqued historically prevalent tenets of Taylorism that espoused hierarchy,
bureaucracy, direct supervision, and other mechanistic forms of worker control.
Although early studies using action research had the potential to democratize work-
places and challenge inequitable institutional power, management frequently used it
398 10 Action Research

as a technique to gain worker buy-in. During following decades, action research

continued to be employed throughout the United States to improve performance and
efficiency, even though, at its core, was the notion of organizational change (Herr &
Anderson, 2005).

Participatory Action Research

Participatory Action Research (PAR) and other, more overtly political methods or
approaches are worthy of consideration too. Participatory action research (PAR) has
been utilized widely in such service industries as health care and health care
research. Here, it differs from most other approaches to public health research
because it is based on reflection, data collection and agenda for action that strives to
improve health and reduce health inequities through involving the people who, in
turn, take actions to improve their own health (Baum et al., 2004).
Participatory action research reflects upon the nature of knowledge and the extent
to which knowledge, particularly experiential knowledge, can lead to a legitimate
form of knowledge that influences practice. This represents a form of research sym-
pathetic to the participatory nature of adult learning. Such a perspective was strongly
supported by the work of Freire (1970), who used PAR to encourage poor and
deprived communities to examine and analyze structural reasons for their oppres-
sion. From these roots, PAR grew as a methodology enabling researchers to work in
partnership with communities in a manner that leads to action for change (Baum
et al., 2004). At its core, PAR is a collective, self-reflective inquiry that researchers
and participants undertake so they can understand and improve upon the practices
in which they participate. The reflective process is directly linked to action, influ-
enced by understandings of history, culture and local context, and embedded in
social relationships. The process of PAR should be empowering and lead to people
having increased control over their lives.
PAR draws upon approaches such as critical theory and constructivism and may
use a range of qualitative and quantitative methods. Thus, PAR differs from conven-
tional research in three significant ways:
• PAR focuses on research, the purpose of which is to enable action, achieved
through a reflective cycle, whereby participants collect and analyze data to deter-
mine what action should follow. The resultant action is then further researched
and an iterative reflective cycle perpetuates data collection, reflection and action
in a “corkscrew” action, spiralling upwards to create positive results.
• PAR pays attention to power relationships, advocating for power to be shared
between researchers and the researched, blurring these lines until the researched
become the researchers. The researched become partners in the research process
and select the research topic, data collection and analysis, and decide upon
actions resulting from the research findings.
The Political Context 399

• PAR contrasts with less dynamic approaches that remove data and information
from their contexts. Additionally, PAR advocates that those being researched
should be actively involved in the process to the extent that this is possible and
the extent to which the participants are willing.
PAR was mainly used in developing countries for needs assessment (De Kroning &
Martin, 1996) and planning and evaluating health services (Wallerstein et al., 2017).
Work by Howard-Grabman (1996) provides a typical description of developing a
community plan to tackle maternal and neonatal health problems in rural Bolivia.
The project built on and strengthened extant women’s networks. Staff took on the
role of facilitators rather than educators and a community action cycle was devel-
oped in which issues were identified and prioritised, joint planning took place, and
the plan was implemented and then evaluated in a participatory way. The project
developed innovative and engaging ways for staff and community members to work
together effectively.
PAR is also being used more frequently in wealthier countries. In mental health
research, for example, PAR has been used in response to the survivor’s movement,
demands for a voice in planning, running services and to stimulate choices and
alternative forms of treatment. PAR principles also form the basis of “empowerment
evaluation” (Fetterman et al., 1996) that argue that the evaluation of health promo-
tion should include those whose health is being promoted. While debate about the
distinctiveness of empowerment evaluation continues, it strives to be more demo-
cratic, to build capacity, to encourage self-determination and to make evaluation
more personal and less expert driven. In addition, PAR is increasingly becoming
recognized as useful in Indigenous health research, offering the potential to reduce
the negative—and colonizing—effects that conventional research has had on
Indigenous people.
As far as academics are concerned, PAR may be seen to be problematic because
it is time consuming and unpredictable, unlikely to lead to a high production of
articles in refereed journals and its somewhat “messy” nature means it is less likely
to attract research funding (Kavannagh et al., 2007). The global research commu-
nity is already being urged to adapt its grant assessment methods and its assessment
of research performance to ensure that the engaged processes typical of PAR are
valued and encouraged (McCoy et al., 2004). As an additional stressor, PAR may
require researchers to work in partnership with policy makers and practitioners,
requiring each actor to learn to work together effectively and to manage different
and sometimes competing agendas (Baum et al., 2004).
In the following video-clip, Stephen Kemmis talks about the process of devel-
oping the methodology associated with performing action research. Interestingly
enough, this emancipatory methodology known as participatory action research
has been appropriated by teachers and other educational practitioners, and, as
noted previously, is often referred to as “teacher research” or “practitioner
research.”
400 10 Action Research

Video Clip 10.3: Emeritus Professor Stephen Kemmis

(▶ https://doi.org/10.1007/000-6dd)

For Stephen Kemmis, the question was about discovering ways to operationalize
emancipatory action research. When The Theory of Communicative Action
(Habermas, 1985) was first published, Jürgen Habermas’s theme was a hugely pow-
erful, new way of seeing. And, like many new journeys, it created interesting new
questions, as well. Circumstances today are very different than they were at that
point in the history of action research and the task, of course, was to create examples
of action research that were successful representations of this powerful methodology.
In order to bring his ideas to fruition, Stephen Kemmis notes that he wrote lists
of what he considered to be key features of this exciting new methodology. However,
after an inexhaustible supply of lists had been created, he was still unsure as to
whether he had captured the essence of action research. In retrospect, he notes that
what he was seeking was the crucial notion that action research, at its core, is par-
ticipatory. Basically, this means that the participants in the research study are also
researchers in the study. In this way, hierarchies of power are flattened as the bound-
aries between the researcher and the researched become blurred. In Stephen
Kemmis’s own words, “No one does action research on anybody else, so the actor
is the researcher. The teacher is the researcher, the social worker, community per-
sons; it is participatory.”
It was this realization that led to the notion that a major issue with the “educa-
tional research industry” was that there tends to be far too much attention given to
the relationships between theorists’ theories and practitioners’ practices when one
really should reverse that duality. According to Kemmis, it makes far more sense to
talk much more about theorists’ practices and practitioners’ theories. He claims that
The Political Context 401

things change only by changing practitioners’ theories; thus, the necessity for action
research to be as participatory as possible.
What this entails, then, in order to be able to render action research as faithfully
as possible, is the gathering of data, which represents the evidence that one must
reflect upon. Then, as one puts the reflections into a plan of action, it is important to
anticipate the consequences of one’s actions. Further to this is the recognition of the
consequences of those actions; that is, the recognition of causality. From this point,
one must strive to capture and represent the process in some meaningful way. Thus,
the consequences of action research must be mobilized, gathering further data or
evidence about the nature and consequences of one’s actions in order to create last-
ing, positive social change.
Given that this is a fairly complex set of procedures, particularly as it involves
numerous participant-researchers, the process can become emancipatory or, at least
transformative for the individuals and the groups working within this methodology.
Although Professor Kemmis concedes that, while action research is done by indi-
viduals, either isolated or working alongside one another, social practices are
socially constructed. As a result, to change social practice, it is necessary to not only
modify what the teacher does but also what the student does. Further to this, it is not
just about the alterations that teacher and students engender but also the ways in
which parents and school authorities view the change, as well as the relationship
between researcher and participants, that is important.
Simply because people tend to live within social networks, when one changes
action, a domino effect tends to be created. When one creates change, the relation-
ships among various kinds of stakeholders are necessarily adjusted. These people,
who are inextricably linked with the action that has created the change, require
engagement and this engagement must occur in a “self-understanding way” within
the research process.
With action research, then, the objective is to create change, to transform not
only processes and procedures, but to transform people, as well. At this point in the
video-clip, Professor Kemmis offers a list of transformative processes that have
helped in the process of metamorphosis. As a result of the action research process,
participants and researchers alike become “culturally and discursively more sustain-
able.” What Professor Kemmis means by this is that they become more rational and
more authentic in terms of their various practices. They also tend to become less
ideologically driven. Consequently, they are also socially, politically and morally
more sustainable in that they are not unjust. The cascade effect continues in that,
with social justice uppermost, harm or suffering are lessened as participants become
materially and economically more sustainable. This transformation means, to
Stephen Kemmis, that the participants are not destructive, wasteful or unproductive.
As a result, they practice greater ecological sustainability in environmental terms,
and become more conscious of whether they are using up the Earth’s resources.
Additionally, they come to understand that they are more sustainable in terms of
individual human beings, and their resilience and capacity to live, rather than wast-
ing, deforming or disfiguring their lives, is improved.
402 10 Action Research

For Stephen Kemmis, then, action research is responsible for creating an eman-
cipatory impulse geared towards generating fewer of those unsustainabilities.
However, in a moment of reflection, Professor Kemmis has his doubts. He claims
that he used to be more hopeful that humanity had the capacity to make change, in
terms of group dynamics, towards greater rationality and the like. However, he now
believes that “we sort of have to climb crab-like out of our holes, away from the
darkness of irrationality; away from the darkness of injustice; it’s away from the
negatives we try to get.” By way of explaining this caveat, Professor Kemmis notes
that, once we begin to believe that we have achieved a positive stance we become
“Utopian.” So, for Stephen Kemmis, action research is less a form of engaged
research than it is a form of collective and collaborative research.
The constant early search for the “essence” of action research, for the “one true
method” of action research created its own difficulties. Professor Kemmis notes that
this search was conducted in a very certain and well-defined way. His search for
“beautiful,” “pure,” and “unsullied” action research that represents an embodiment
of thoughtfulness can be likened to a search for the Holy Grail of qualitative meth-
odologies. However, if such a form of action research were ever to be discovered or
were ever to exist in real terms, he notes that it would likely not have the spiral of
self-contained cycles of planning, acting and observing, and reflecting. It would be
so because the spiral concept commonly associated with action research really
never quite works according to plan or the way that people expect it to work. While
it does work effectively, it is driven by data, so it really only ever works in a fairly
general sense, according to Kemmis.
Kemmis and McTaggart (2000) maintain that, in reality, the process may not be
as neat as these spiral stages suggest. The process is likely to be more fluid, open
and responsive; characteristic of this form of qualitative research—the plan, act,
observe, reflect spiral is, by necessity, iterative and appealing, as it allows for an
opportunity to re-envision the phenomenon at progressively higher levels of under-
standing (Koshy, 2010). In fact, as Koshy (2010) explains, excessive reliance on a
particular model, or following the stages or cycles of a model too rigidly, may
adversely affect the emerging nature and flexibility that are the hallmarks of action
research.
Although action research may not necessarily function in terms of social justice
issues, it does tend to focus on matters of social justice. This tends to occur because,
as Stephen Kemmis attests, the world is so overly structured in terms of systems,
governmentality, performativity, accountability demands, compliance, regulations,
and rampant policy making. For an action researcher, research always tends to
become influenced by what he calls, “endless, reckless, policy making and regula-
tion.” As a result, then, the social world appears to roll over us like a juggernaut. For
Professor Kemmis, however, one of action research’s most important aims is to
identify that community of spaces where people can encounter one another and
think together in that particular mode that Habermas refers to as communicative
action, where individuals and groups of individuals seek out innocent intersubjec-
tive agreement, mutual understanding and consensus about how to proceed regard-
ing any given situation or series of events. Because action research is so very tightly
The Political Context 403

bound to real life issues, as such, Professor Kemmis finds Habermas’s system of
micro-theory useful in attempting to understand the way that action research theo-
ries actually do work. He notes that these three things—agreement, understanding
and consensus—require a vehicle, such as action research, in order to create the
conditions by which this may be accomplished.
Accordingly, for Stephen Kemmis, action research attempts to look into the soci-
ety, through its participants, in order to understand issues within society and the
consequences of those issues. He laments the fact that this rarely happens, due to the
very mechanisms that slow the process, such as proposal writing, funding and,
eventually, getting to the actual research itself. These things not only take time but
researchers do not ordinarily think about their research projects in terms of propos-
als that will capture the essence of the research, itself. Increasingly, he is beginning
to think of action research as a kind of restless, subversive quest to “understand
things together and to understand together why things are going wrong” because he
worries that issues within the society are going wrong and they are continuing to go
wrong in ever-increasing magnitude.
Consequently, the responsibility claimed through action research is to discover
ways to begin and sustain necessary conversations in order for people to understand
one another and to gain some modicum of peace and contentment because consen-
sus may be easily achieved allowing conflict and disagreement to be readily con-
quered. Therefore, given this responsibility, very different kinds of education are
needed and, to Professor Kemmis, an action research project is a means to engage
people by bringing them together to overcome these afore-mentioned irrationalities
and issues that plague society.
In questioning whether it involves a form of self-transformation for the groups
involved, Professor Kemmis believes it does, as has been observed in Australia’s
Northern Territory, where he and a research team worked a number of years ago.
This transformation tends to occur as a result of data collection, as action research
involves people in collecting all kinds of data, historical and otherwise, in order for
them to interpret their own reality, to write their story and to develop different ways
of understanding that story. Thus, action research lends itself to systematic inquiry
that is eventually made public simply through people working, writing and connect-
ing with one another. However, he cautions, it will not look like an action research
project at the time, and it will not appear like a proposal that incorporates a set
number of steps that are then written up and sent off to one academic journal or
another for publication.
Action research, Professor Kemmis claims, is really about changing the world;
and that is what engaged research is really all about. It is not about changing words;
it is about refashioning the environment and the world around us. In fact, he notes,
great scientific breakthroughs are not the ones that appear on the pages of a journal,
somewhere, which only a few “arcane specialists” will read; the great breakthroughs
are about solving the issues surrounding Indigenous education in Australia, for
example, or resolving problems relating to international relations. Because it is in
the world that we want to see these changes made, it requires “working with people,
not working on them.”
404 10 Action Research

Thus, as Professor Kemmis opines, action research that does make a difference
helps people find alternative ways of understanding their world. For example, he
notes, the entire Freirian movement towards conscientization in which migrant farm
workers were taught to become more literate. Through their growing understanding
of social issues that oppressed them, personally (Freire, 2000), they simultaneously
learned to understand the social world. However, he points out, the mechanism that
allows this process to occur spontaneously is quite invisible to them. Their condi-
tion was taken for granted, the process inscrutable, and it was Freire and others who
helped them and many others besides to understand their own specific social loca-
tion and their language, together. This was extraordinarily liberating and earns
Paulo Freire, along with Kurt Lewin, the honour of being one of the founding fathers
of action research.
As he ends this interview, Professor Kemmis notes that many of us are good at
doing research but are not as good at being engaged with the world. So, when we
ask ourselves what changes we want to make and how we are going to go about his
process, it is a call to action research, but it is not a call that the academy ordinarily
favours. Part of the academy’s resistance to action research is the notion of validity,
largely due to its apparent methodological limitations (Ellis, 2010). These criticisms
relate to a perceived lack of scientific rigour, replicability and generalizability. In
humble defense, all such critiques are more commonly associated with quantitative
research and, particularly, the notion of generalizability has never been within the
purview of qualitative research, in general.
In response to this, and due to the need for qualitative research to develop its own
vocabulary, distinct from quantitative research, Zeichner and Noffke (2001) recom-
mend the term “trustworthiness,” referring to the analysis of data and whether
reports and interpretations represent an honest and authentic construction of the
knowledge that is generated through the research inquiry. Greenwood and Levin
(2007) use the term “credibility” (p. 67) in two ways; internal credibility refers to
knowledge created that is meaningful to the participants generating it, and external
credibility refers to those uninvolved in the research but for whom the outcomes
must be plausible.

The Postmodern Context

The current postmodern period has added to the complexity of doing research by
pointing to the multiplicity of ways that research may be performed, represented,
and interpreted. LeCompte (1995) notes that the postmodern context shifts the locus
of power in collaborative research by giving voice to those who have not yet been
heard, and by seeking to legitimize ideas that have previously been denied. As ever,
when it comes to discussing any qualitative methodology, there are always signifi-
cant differences between the methodology as written and the methodology as lived
and performed. As has been mentioned previously, in preceding chapters, when it
comes to qualitative research, there may very well be as many different
The Postmodern Context 405

methodological twists and turns as there are researchers involved with any given
methodology. Action research is no different.
Thus, depending upon those who are involved in action research, there is a mul-
tiplicity of ways to describe the permutations of action research. In fact, according
to Burns (2015), there are approximately 30 typical representations of action
research that utilize a three- or four-stage spiral approach, such as planning, action,
observation and reflection. These spirals are interwoven, fluid and repeated through-
out the inquiry, encouraging the researcher(s) to prepare themselves for unexpected
and unanticipated variations and reiterations in the research process. In fact, O’Brien
(2001) notes that, by the mid-1970s, the field had evolved, revealing four current
types of action research that had emerged—traditional (from Kurt Lewin), contex-
tual or action learning (reconstituting structural relations), radical (emancipation
and overcoming power imbalances), and educational action research (from
John Dewey).
To add to the mix, the terms “collaborative” and “participatory” action research
are frequently used interchangeably. However, in collaborative action research, the
emphasis is placed upon the collaboration or the process, rather than, as in participa-
tory action research, the emphasis being placed upon the participants, themselves.
Youth action research, a subset of participatory action research, based on Freire’s
method of praxis (Cammarota, 2011), is clearly focused on providing “young peo-
ple the opportunity to think critically about their social and economic conditions
and engage in actions to address these conditions” (p. 829) in order to transform
their lived experience for the better and to provide opportunities to grow intellectu-
ally and acquire the skills necessary to handle a variety of challenges. The model is
collaboratively designed and is directly aimed at addressing issues of social justice
that students themselves have identified.
Collective action research identifies participants as a collection of individuals,
possibly from very different walks of life. Community-based action research, as the
name implies, focuses on a community or a geographical location and may very
well include components of collective-type action research. According to Bob Dick
(1997), action learning is a variant of action research, which can be defined as a
process in which a group of people come together on a regular basis in order to
assist one another to learn from their lived experiences. Frequently, this process is
used across several different organizations, where participants typically emanate
from disparate organizations in order to learn about a common theme. Most com-
monly, however, this has taken the form of managers, within a single organization,
participating in action learning that may be somewhat comparable to professional
learning communities (Wenger, 1999) in their truest form. Typically, also, the team
is constituted of participants who have a common goal in mind, possibly accompa-
nied by a facilitator.
Participatory action learning, as the name suggests, prioritizes core values, such
as inclusiveness, to cultivate participatory approaches to knowledge production and
exchange, as well as to explore systems dynamics and power relations, thus allow-
ing participatory action learning—like its namesake, participatory action research—
to become a catalyst for transformative social change and development. However,
406 10 Action Research

the key difference resides in the point that participatory action learning is commit-
ted to the process of learning, rather than to systems of external accountability
(Action Evaluation Collaborative, 2016).
Another permutation of action research is termed “living theory action research”
(Whitehead, 2009, p. 85). This form of action research establishes how individuals
may generate living theories from action research as explanations for their educa-
tional influences in learning. These explanations afford an understanding of the
epistemological significance of such influences, explored in terms of energy and
values that may drive questions, such as “How do I improve what I am doing?”
Textual limitations in expressing meanings of the explanatory principles can be
overcome by adopting a perspective of inclusivity and through multi-media expla-
nations focusing on the embodied knowledges of action researchers
(Whitehead, 2009).
As well as methodological approaches to and variations of action research,
numerous methods are available that align well with action research. Essentially,
data collecting frequently takes traditional forms, such as observing and recording,
and asking for viewpoints or opinions. As with all forms of research, the research
question, methodology, conceptual framework and data collection methods should
be well co-ordinated with one another. Although uncommon, action research may
also be quantified through percentages, rankings, or ratings (Burns, 2015).
Qualitative action research, as an umbrella term, may include, but is not limited to
• Appreciative Inquiry – beginning with what is working well and then using
action research to improve it.
• Lesson Study – teaching a shared lesson as the action with a set of protocols for
understanding the outcomes.
• Practitioner Research – need not be action research since practitioners can
engage in any form of qualitative or quantitative research.
• Teacher Research – like practitioner research, this 0may be any kind of research
performed by teachers, including action research, but not limited to it.
• Reflective Practice/Self Study – uses action research but does not require the
practitioner to publish or share results.
• Action Inquiry – draws upon action research through recasting evaluation
research to better understand collective leadership.
• Improvement Science – is designed explicitly to accelerate learning-by-doing
from a more user-centered and problem-centered approach to improve teaching
and learning.
As can be seen, these approaches illustrate the enormous variations in action
research that people, working in various professions and employment situations,
have of conceptualizing these terms. Action research, in all of its varieties, is also
gaining acceptance in applied linguistics studies as an empirical approach, as well
as to engage practitioners in their personal professional growth through reflective
practice and local practical inquiry (Burns, 2015).
The Philosophical Context 407

The Philosophical Context

As with any form of qualitative research, the process by which action research is
performed is as much an art form as it is with any other qualitative research meth-
odology. Proper ethical considerations and research design assure the equity, qual-
ity, and value of action research in enhancing social situations. Burns (2015) asks
three important ethical questions: whose permission is required, who will be affected
by the research, and how should the results be disseminated? Because action
research tends to involve continual decisions and challenges, an ethical position is
needed in order to strengthen the quality, trustworthiness and credibility of the
action research inquiry (Burns, 2015).
At its heart, action research remains an interactive inquiry process, balancing
collaborative problem-solving initiatives with data-driven analysis, also collabora-
tive, in order to realize underlying causes that allow for future predictions, relative
to personal and/or organizational change (Reason & Bradbury, 2001). Within action
research, there have been a multitude of methods that have been developed over the
past half century, or so. These methods have evolved to adjust the focus of the meth-
odology in order to concentrate more on actions involved with the research, or more
on the research angles of the endeavour that tend to result from the reflective under-
standing of the actions taken. According to Reason and Bradbury (2001), tensions
exist between researchers driven either by the research agenda or by the participants
within the research project, and by those motivated to realize goals associated with
the research project, or by personal, organizational or societal transformations. In
other words, this tension exists between a personal perspective regarding the
research, as opposed to more scholarly research aimed at creating theory or devel-
oping large-scale change (Reason & Bradbury, 2001).
As such, action research has the capacity to move beyond reflective knowledge,
created by “experts,” to active and immediate theorizing occurring in the midst of
emergent structures or methods. In this way, action research maintains the ability to
challenge traditional social science and, because it represents a problem-based
investigation by practitioners into their own practice, it can be considered to be an
empirical practice in that it creates and shares knowledge within the social sciences.
However, regardless of the aim of action research, a number of theoretical approaches
to action research have been developed.
John Heron (1928–) – renamed and, in effect, rebranded collaborative action
research as “cooperative inquiry” (1996). This was later broadened and further
developed by Peter Reason (2001). The objective of cooperative inquiry is to
emphasize full involvement by all participants in the action research inquiry, hence
the term, “cooperative.” This changes the relationship between the researchers and
participants so that the participants become co-researchers with those facilitating
the project. In so doing, cooperative inquiry creates research cycles among four dif-
fering kinds of knowledge:
• Propositional – typically found in contemporary science and which may repre-
sent arcane knowledge or suppositions about that knowledge;
408 10 Action Research

• Practical – knowledge obtained by enacting the proposed research;

• Experiential – information obtained from interaction with the environs; and,
• Presentational – the process, artistic and rehearsed, through which new practices
may be developed. (Reason & Bradbury, 2001)
With each iteration of the cooperative research cycle, each of these four stages are
enacted and, due to the spiral nature of these iterations, experience and knowledge
are broadened and deepened as a result of the initial process and/or from the devel-
opment of new propositions or practices.
Chris Argyris (1923–2013) – maintained that humans design their actions to
attain specific consequences. As such, they are governed by environmental vari-
ables, which dictate key differences between single- and double-loop learning.
Single-loop learning is used when the current goals, values and strategies are sound, not
questionable and the emphasis is on techniques and their effectiveness. On the other hand,
double-loop learning is used when strategy is reviewed and the emphasis is on learning and
reviewing previous situations. (Mihăiloaie, 2014).

Thus, when actions are taken to achieve intended consequences, single-loop

learning occurs. However, when actions are designed with the object of transforma-
tion in mind, double-loop learning follows. It is possible to have both single-and
double-loop learning occurring within the same study, providing that both of the
above noted objectives guide the study. Single-and double-loop learning concepts
can be applied not only to personal behaviours but also to organizational behav-
iours. This differs from research in which environmental variables are controlled
and researchers try to discern cause and effect within an isolated environment
(Argyris, 1999).

Single-Loop, Double-Loop, and Triple-Loop Learning

Based on the work of Chris Argyris and Donald Schön (1974), in particular, Single-
Loop Learning is about making adjustments in order to correct a mistake or to fix
a problem. The focus for this type of learning is on following the procedures or by
“doing things right.” Causality in rarely an issue with this type of learning. Double-
Loop Learning, however, is concerned with causality, particularly in terms of iden-
tifying and understanding the issue at hand and then taking steps to resolve or “fix”
a specific issue. This type of learning is less focussed on “doing things right” than
on “doing the right things.”
Single-Loop, Double-Loop, and Triple-Loop Learning 409

There is a third type of learning, as well. This is referred to as Triple Loop

Learning, which tends to explore values and reasons for existing systems and pro-
cesses. This third type of learning strives to understand the process of
decision-making.

Single-Loop Learning

Single-Loop learning is considered to be a relatively conservative learning strategy

because there is no opportunity for questioning or creating change. Single-Loop
learning is really about following the process from start to finish in order to find out
where the problem lies. One overused example relates to the concept of the thermo-
stat which operates in one mode, thanks to a bi-metallic strip that identifies when a
room is too cold or too hot. This is an automatic and limited reaction. When address-
ing single-loop learning in real life situations, little insight is required and even less
learning takes place. A better example may be a typical organization where hierar-
chical processes, procedures and practices occur. Single-Loop learning is in evi-
dence when anomalies are detected and these situations are dealt with in order to
return to “normal.” The reasons for these anomalies are rarely explored. Typically,
single-loop learning results in small fixes and minor adjustments.
When the error detected and corrected permits the organization to carry on its present poli-
cies or achieve its presents objectives, then that error-and-correction process is single-loop
learning. Single-loop learning is like a thermostat that learns when it is too hot or too cold
and turns the heat on or off. The thermostat can perform this task because it can receive
410 10 Action Research

information (the temperature of the room) and take corrective action. Double-loop learning
occurs when error is detected and corrected in ways that involve the modification of an
organization’s underlying norms, policies and objectives. (Argyris & Schön, 1978, p. 2–3)

Double-Loop Learning

With double-loop learning, the game is changed by adjusting the rules that are cur-
rently in play. This type of learning may occur as a result of single-loop learning that
has identified a departure from traditional or historical approaches to an issue or
problem. This approach seeks the cause for the anomaly in the first place and then
seeks to make adjustments. Double-Loop Learning aims to not only make assump-
tions explicit, but to change them, thus creating a new space where what is already
known can be viewed from new perspectives. Double-loop learning requires a cer-
tain amount of creativity and innovative thinking in order to detect the cause of the
issue at hand in order to understand the effect of potential solutions. As ever, the
objective is to (re)solve an issue or to achieve a specified goal. If single-loop learn-
ing is characterized by fixing or avoiding errors, double-loop learning may be char-
acterized by attending to the underlying causes of the issue at hand. In many cases,
the culprit may be traced to the organization’s culture, or to policies requiring
review, working conditions, or even traditional beliefs and values that are problem-
atic. Double-loop learning tends to lead to organizational learning.

Triple-Loop Learning

There is a third type of learning, called, triple-loop learning, that strives to under-
stand the process by which solutions are developed and understood (McNamara,
2006). Thus, this type of learning is more about the process of learning than it is
about the process of problem resolution. So, if single-loop learning is about making
certain that the rules are followed, and double-loop learning is about understanding
the cause of the problem in order to resolve it, triple-loop learning questions the
purpose of the practice, itself, whether it refers to rules, processes or policies. Thus,
triple-loop learning is existential at its core because it questions the need for, the
verity or the value of the particular point in question. Triple-loop learning allows for
self-reflection with regard to beliefs regarding a particular phenomenon, as well as
allowing for social exploration and reflection as multiple ideas may be considered.
Therefore, triple-loop learning is frequently concerned with self-reflexive and
socially constructed meaning-making (Corlett, 2012).
Single-Loop, Double-Loop, and Triple-Loop Learning 411

The Action Research Process as an Agent of Change

Action research can be engaged in by a single individual, a group of colleagues or

by an entire system, whether it be a school (Sagor, 2000), a hospital or a commercial
institution. However, according to Sagor (2000), action research always involves the
same iterative seven-step process:
• Selecting a focus
• Clarifying theories
• Identifying research questions
• Collecting data
• Analyzing results
• Reporting results
• Taking informed action
These seven steps, while discreet and separate form one another, can easily be con-
densed into a typical action research spiral. Thus, the integrity of the single-loop,
double-loop or triple-loop learning can be preserved in whatever form or direction
that the action research project may take.
As noted by Burns (2015), however, action research can be deliberately interven-
tionist, as it takes aim directly at the status quo. Consequently, researchers and
participants alike may find themselves confronting threatening or distasteful reali-
ties in ways that they had not anticipated or even entertained. Despite such disturb-
ing eventualities, educational aims continue to be at the centre of most forms of
action research, as it endeavours to develop and augment participant and researcher
relationships within and among each group. Illuminating how relationships and
ethical principles were mediated in relation to the various research cycles provides
a level of research integrity.
Because action researchers may not merely be participants but may also assume
the role of facilitators, as well, at some times they may be expected to be in charge
of a classroom; the social situation within which they may find themselves is likely
to be dynamic. It is for this reason that research parameters, such as scope and intent
of the project, need to be realistic and justified (Burns, 2015), and are closely tied to
the educational concept that practice and theory inform one another reciprocally.

Action Research in Organizational Development

Action research, conceptualized by Kurt Lewin, has been further developed and
expanded upon by numerous social scientists. Lewin’s basic tenet was that motiva-
tion was intrinsically related to action. Lewin related such action to permanent,
effective social change. Thus, he noted, if people are involved in the change process,
the likelihood of permanent, positive change is enhanced. He claimed that if “ratio-
nal social management” (Lewin, 1958) were to be realized, it would proceed in
412 10 Action Research

Fig. 10.2 Lewin’s action research spiral in Organizational Development. (Smith, 2001)

terms of spiraling steps (Fig. 10.2), each of which is comprised of “a circle of plan-
ning, action and fact-finding about the result of action” (p. 201).
French and Bell (1973) used action research to define organizational develop-
ment. Below is a representation of the action research cycle, as appropriated by
behaviouralists involved in organizational development. Figure 10.3 summarizes
the steps and processes involved in planned change through action research, depicted
as a cyclical process of change. Note the differences between this model, adapted
for organizational development and the original model developed by Lewin
(Figs. 10.1 and 10.2).
As so frequently occurs with any type of qualitative research methodology, per-
mutations abound. Although the systems model of action research may be useful for
organizational development, it does not mean that the original Lewin model is
insufficient for the task. In fact, numerous organizations opt for the original model
in order to move their organizational project along. A third type of model is pre-
sented below, Fig. 10.4. This model is a simplified version of a typical action
research cycle that is frequently used by smaller groups and individual researchers.
As can be seen, the action loops continue to spiral and remain cyclical. The vocabu-
lary is more appropriate to individuals and small groups and is a beneficial model
where time and resources may be limited.
As major adjustments or re-evaluations in any of these models occur, the cycle
tends to revert to the first step of the planning stage. Thus, the organizational devel-
opment or individual development project would exhibit the basic change that has
initiated that reversion—or revision—as it were. The action stage of any of these
models signals a period of change, often resulting in new behaviours that can result
Single-Loop, Double-Loop, and Triple-Loop Learning 413

Fig. 10.3 A systems

model of the action
research process. (French
& Bell, 1973)

Fig. 10.4 Riel (2019)

in improved understanding of issues within the system and, thus, may indicate ways
of better coping with these issues. Of course, these steps and cycles are not mutually
exclusive domains, as there is always some overlap and, in reality, borders between
stages are not clearly defined. Gaps and overlaps are a natural occurrence in this
continuously evolving process. Action research is not only participant- or problem-
centered, it is also oriented towards action in an attempt to provide identification of
problems, a diagnosis of issues, and an active direction-taking which tends to
414 10 Action Research

recycle and transform incrementally until an appropriate solution materializes that

serves to resolve the issue(s) that invoked the application of action research to
begin with.

Feature Article: Action Research in an Urban

Elementary School

The following article explores how action research can be used in a collaborative
environment. This was first written in 2006 and has been reprinted several times
since. The authors of this volume have chosen to reprint this article to illustrate that
action research is not only theoretical but it is also immensely practicable. The topic
concerns a Grade Three classroom and the idea that even very complex ideas, par-
ticularly about social issues, such as literacy, can be shared with very young chil-
dren, providing that the vocabulary is appropriate to the age group (See Action
Research in practice: Critical literacy in An urban grade three classroom).

Summary: Action Research in a Participating Society

Action research represents a flexible and inclusive qualitative research methodol-

ogy. Researchers strive to understand and articulate tensions stemming from partici-
pants’ underlying roles and stances in order to create transformational change by
simultaneously engaging in change strategies while taking action. A major contribu-
tor to the development of action research is Emeritus Professor Stephen Kemmis,
who speaks of his interest in social issues, which in turn spurred his interest in
action research.
Action research originated with many different scholars from various back-
grounds. John Dewey and Kurt Lewin created the foundations of action research.
Paulo Freire echoed Dewey’s critique of the transmission model of education and
laid the foundation for what would later become critical pedagogy. Chris Argyris,
John Heron and Peter Reason broadened and further developed the action research
process.
Action research is markedly political with respect to its utility in challenging
or re-inscribing traditional power hierarchies, as well as contemporary social jus-
tice and educational goals. Criticisms relate to a perceived lack of scientific rigour,
replicability and generalizability. There are perhaps thirty typical representations
of action research that utilize the interwoven, fluid and iterative spiral approach of
planning, action, observation and reflection throughout the inquiry. An ethical
positioning strengthens the quality, trustworthiness and credibility of the action
research inquiry. Within action research, a multitude of methods have evolved to
adjust the focus of the methodology to concentrate more on actions involved with
Summary: Action Research in a Participating Society 415

the research, or more on the research angles of the endeavour. This chapter con-
cluded with an article featuring the development of critical literacy through action
research.
Suggestions for Further Reading
Should the reader wish to read further, regarding action research, please refer to the
following:
Altrichter, H., Posch, P. & Somekh, B. (1993). Teachers investigate their work: An
introduction to the methods of action research. Routledge.
Burnaford, G., Fischer, J. & Hobson, D. (Eds.) (2001). Teachers doing research:
The power of action through inquiry (2nd edition). Lawrence Erlbaum.
Edge, J. (Ed.). (2001). Action research. TESOL.
Selected Annotated Bibliography
Argyris, C. (1999). On organizational learning. Blackwell.
In this book Argyris discusses vital topics of current management research,
reflecting the evolving field of organizational learning. This volume is essential for
anyone who needs to understand how organizations work, evolve and learn. This
new edition brings together the thinking of one of the world’s leading management
thinkers in the area of action learning. Focusing on learning and organizational poli-
tics, the book addresses key issues such as organizational learning and action sci-
ence, organizational effectiveness, organizational development, and usable
knowledge and how it is inhibited. This volume sheds light into boardroom pro-
cesses by bringing together the literature on organization behaviour and that of
boardroom process to model learning capability. Board process is primarily viewed
as a learning process whereby individual members with their knowledge, skills and
external networks engage in a collective learning process that culminates in a
“shared understanding” about the problems and respective solutions and increased
“board social capital.”
Dewey, J. (1897/2019). Moral principles in education and my pedagogic creed by
John Dewey. Myers Education Press.
Contemporary political and socioeconomic conditions that are largely character-
ized by corruption and inequity have added new urgency to recurring calls for reori-
enting public schools to their historic purpose; that is, educating a citizenry both
equipped and motivated to serve as the ultimate guardians of democracy. In this
significant volume, John Dewey reminds readers of public schools’ original pur-
pose, which was to identify specific educational principles and practices that either
promote or undermine their essential democratic goals. As Dewey states, “There
cannot be two sets of ethical principles, one for life in the school, and the other for
life outside of the school.” In these works and through such caveats, Dewey offers
readers not only the motivation to engage in the struggle for a new emphasis on
educating for democratic citizenship but also the guidance necessary to translate his
theory into effective practice.
416 10 Action Research

Elliott, J. (1991). Action research for educational change. Open University Press.
Conceived in instrumental terms, practical knowledge is set against theoretical
knowledge. This work strives to legitimate a conception of action research which
privileges practice over theory and redefines the relationship between theory and
practice. This book is concerned with action research as a form of teacher profes-
sional development. In it, John Elliot traces the historical emergence and current
significance of action research in schools. He examines action research as a cultural
innovation with transformative possibilities for both the professional culture of
teachers and teacher educators in academia and explores how action research can be
a form of creative resistance to the technical rationality underpinning government
policy. He explains the role of action research in the specific contexts of the national
curriculum, teacher appraisal and competence-based teacher training. This book is
a valuable source of information for educators wishing to become change agents in
the educational setting.
Fals-Borda, O., & Rahman, M. A. (1991). Action and knowledge: Breaking the
monopoly with participatory action research. Rowman & Littlefield.
Action and Knowledge draws upon years of experience with the techniques and
philosophy of participatory action-research (PAR), an innovative approach to eco-
nomic and social change, which goes beyond usual institutional boundaries in
development by actively involving the people in generating knowledge about their
own condition and how it can be changed. PAR requires a strong commitment by
participating social scientists to de-professionalize their expertise and share it, while
recognizing that the communities involved have a critical voice in determining the
direction and goals of change. PAR originated in the work of social scientists, who
sought new ways to empower the oppressed by helping them acquire reliable knowl-
edge on which to construct countervailing power. Since then, it has spread through-
out the world, as reflected in this book. PAR is not static and fixed but dynamic and
enduring, as the case studies and the theoretical chapters that precede and follow the
case studies amply reveal.
Habermas, J. (1962/1991). The structural transformation of the public sphere: An
inquiry into a category of bourgeois society. MIT Press.
Jürgen Habermas’s The Structural Transformation of the Public Sphere is an
immensely rich and influential book that has had major impact in a variety of disci-
plines. It has also received detailed critique and promoted extremely productive
discussions of liberal democracy, civil society, public life and social changes in the
twentieth century. Few books have been so seriously discussed in so many different
fields and continue to generate productive controversy and insight. Although
Habermas’s thought took several crucial philosophical turns after the publication of
his first major book, he has provided detailed commentary on The Structural
Transformation of the Public Sphere in the 1990s and has returned to issues of the
public sphere and democratic theory in his monumental work Between Facts and
Norms. Hence, concern with the public sphere and the necessary conditions for a
Summary: Action Research in a Participating Society 417

genuine democracy can be seen as a central theme of Habermas’s work that deserves
respect and critical scrutiny.
Kemmis, S. & Carr, W. (1986/2002). Becoming critical: Education knowledge and
action research. Routledge Falmer.
The growing movement to extend the professionalism of teachers has resulted in
greater opportunities for them to engage in greater theorizing and educational
research. Some examples of this include school-based curriculum development,
research-based in-service education and professional self-evaluation projects. The
teacher as researcher impetus is a response to a variety of social conditions, political
pressures and professional aspirations. This volume offers a theoretical rationale by
outlining a philosophical justification supporting the role of teachers as researchers
through the development of educational research as a form of critical social science.
By exposing and critically assessing key philosophical positions in educational
research, this book offers teachers access to the language that allows them to adopt
a research stance in their educational practice. This book also questions the con-
formist view upon which many beliefs about education continue to rest.
Kincheloe, J. L. (2008). Critical pedagogy primer (2nd Ed.). Peter Lang.
This second edition of the Critical Pedagogy Primer introduces the topic of criti-
cal pedagogy and also provides a vision for the future of critical pedagogy.
Kincheloe’s notion of an “evolving criticality” ensures that critical pedagogy will
continue to be a vibrant and creative force that makes a powerful difference in edu-
cation and in the world in general. As it prepares readers for the challenges of the
future, it focuses on the traditions and individuals who have helped to construct the
discipline. This attention to the past and future provides readers with an introduc-
tion unlike most initiations into academic disciplines. In a richly textured but direct
manner, Kincheloe captures the spirit of critical pedagogy in a language accessible
to diverse audiences. Both the uninitiated and those with experience in critical peda-
gogy can learn from this unique and compelling perspective on the field. Joe
L. Kincheloe was Canada Research Chair in Critical Pedagogy at McGill University
and was founder of The Paulo and Nita Freire International Project for Critical
Pedagogy.
Lewin, K. (1958). Group decision and social change. Holt, Rinehart & Winston.
This classic volume describes numerous experiments regarding group decision-
making that have been conducted in the past. At the time, group decision-making
did not allow for definite conclusions. This volume addresses the nature of the prob-
lems and the main factors concerned. Also addressed are the various concepts
through which the author attempted to integrate cultural anthropology, psychology
and sociology into one social science. Scientifically speaking, many of the ques-
tions related to group decision-making lie at the intersection of many basic prob-
lems of group life and individual psychology. This volume addresses the relationship
of motivation to action and the effect of a group setting on an individual’s readiness
to change or to maintain the status quo. Thus, it is related to a fundamental problem
418 10 Action Research

of action research; how to change group conduct so that recidivism is minimized.

Within this wider setting of social norms and social management, group decision-
making is viewed as a means of social change.
McTaggart, R. (1991). Action research: A short modern history. Deakin
University Press.
For serious practitioners of participatory action research, it is helpful to identify
its principles. This volume outlines principles of participatory action research
derived from theory and practice in both Western and cross-cultural contexts.
Participatory action research is identified with critical social theory and is exempli-
fied with two perspectives from participatory action research in Northern Australian
Aboriginal communities. The core idea of action research is that there should be an
intimate relationship between inquiry and practical or political activities. Research
must be treated as operating on the same plane as any other activity, but the relation-
ship between research and the action that is anticipated as its result will always be
less than isomorphic, and this creates the possibility of systemic tensions, which
may be ameliorated by subordinating inquiry, or by making it primary. Both ave-
nues are legitimate, although attempting to treat the two components of action
research as equal may engender significant contradiction.
Monk, R. (1992). Wittgenstein: The duty of genius. Penguin.
According to Ray Monk, Ludwig Wittgenstein, the philosopher and reluctant
Cambridge don, was driven by spiritual matters, as much as by intellectual con-
cerns. Wittgenstein exchanged academia for solitude whenever possible and was
drawn to brilliant younger men. Monk does a magnificent job of illuminating the
twin journeys of Wittgenstein’s extraordinary mind and soul. This volume is remark-
able for the interweaving of the philosophical and the emotional aspects of
Wittgenstein’s life. Ray Monk’s reconnection of Wittgenstein’s philosophy with his
life exemplifies Wittgenstein’s work, allowing the reader to view it in new ways.
Monk’s biography of Wittgenstein is brilliant and deeply intelligent. Monk’s rendi-
tion of Wittgenstein’s life represents a marvelous philosophical biography, for
which the author was awarded the John Llewellyn Rhys Prize and the Duff Cooper
Prize. He is also the author of Robert Oppenheimer and a two-volume biography of
Bertrand Russell.
Reason, P., & Bradbury, H. (2001). Handbook of action research: Participative
inquiry and practice. SAGE.
This book represents a truly significant work in the reframing of action research.
Action research has reached maturity and, in the context of postmodern construc-
tionist debates, its scope has been dramatically expanded, its conceptual underpin-
nings deepened, and its forms of practice enormously enriched. This is an excellent
book for understanding the inter-relationship between researchers, participants and
the greater society. In this exciting handbook, Reason and Bradbury have produced
a number of significant writings in this new and developing sphere of participative
inquiry, representing a valuable resource for researchers and for research methods
Action Research in practice: Critical literacy in an urban grade three classroom 419

courses, as it draws together the different strands of action research, demonstrating

their diverse applications and showing their interrelations. This volume is an essen-
tial resource for scholars and professionals engaged in social and political inquiry,
organizational research and education.
Stenhouse, L. (1975). An introduction to curriculum research and development.
Heinemann.
This is a classic text that has been very influential in the development of practi-
tioner and action research. Stenhouse proposes a model for curriculum as an
enquiry-based process so that teachers, students, parents and the local community
can work together to plan, evaluate and develop the content, learning experiences
and outcomes of schooling to foster a rich education for all those involved. The
model is led primarily by objectives or learning outcomes. Stenhouse’s model is
radical in that it positions teachers as practitioner researchers and also because it
offers an alternative to prescribed content-heavy transmissive curriculum. Stenhouse
argues that teachers need to be research-informed but also be involved in educa-
tional research. At the end of this book, he concludes that researchers and teachers
need to collaborate in order to develop strong learning and research skills. Stenhouse
notes that communication is less effective than community when it comes to the
utilization of knowledge.
Questions for Further Study
• What similarities exist between action research and other qualitative
methodologies?
• How does action research differ from other qualitative methodologies?
• What are some of the benefits derived from the process of doing action research?
• What particular type of action research are you particularly drawn to and why?
• Can you attempt to apply action research to a topic of your own choosing? What
would this study look like using an action research methodology?

Action Research in practice: Critical literacy in an urban

grade three classroom

Karyn Cooper
Ontario Institute for Studies in Education of the University of Toronto
Robert E. White
St. Francis Xavier University
Cooper, K. & White, R. E. (2006). Action research in practice: Critical literacy in an
urban grade 3 classroom. Educational Action Research 14(1), 83-99.
Abstract
This action research project on critical literacy in a high poverty area in Toronto,
Canada becomes the practical backdrop for examining how critical literacy can be
420 10 Action Research

developed and applied in regular classroom situations. Educators identifying pat-

terns within classrooms that prevent students from participating fully in all aspects
of a democratic society may find models presented in this article useful for making
curricula more inclusive.
Literacy failure leads to poor overall academic performance, immense loss of
self-esteem and an accumulating lack of basic literacy skills needed for self-support
and for making an economic contribution to society. While literacy can be defined
in many ways in today’s society, it is reading failure that is currently the most sig-
nificant issue along the literacy spectrum.
Reading failure and educational change are inextricably intertwined. In order to
bolster literacy capacity, a prime place to begin is in the arena of educational reform.
Education has undergone profound changes in the past few years as ministries of
education, faculties of education, and school boards prepare teachers to respond to
the needs of “all” children. In the province of Ontario, Canada, for example, all
Grade Three students now participate in the Education Quality and Accountability
Office (EQAO) Standardized tests. As well, a public school board in Ontario has
compiled a Learning Opportunities Index (Toronto District School Board, 2001)
which serves to indicate a “relative level of need” for over 450 elementary schools
under its prevue. This Opportunities Index correlates with literacy scores from
EQAO Tests and is used by the school district to profile low literacy levels for early
learners from urban schools (Brown, 2001). Despite significant public expenditure
on education, being part of the reading world is not a reality for many urban inner
city children in lower socio-economic areas. While these learners are Ontario’s at-
risk students, their situation has global parallels. Although local practices and global
practices differ around the world, literacy requires a re-imaging in this era of recon-
struction and development (Janks, 2000). This issue, then, is an international one:
how can elementary teachers in urban schools best help at-risk learners in literacy
education and thus their chances for future success in education and life?
One of those hundreds of urban elementary schools in this Canadian school
board is the Sir Simon George Elementary School. This K-5 school has over 650
students, 48% female and 52 % male, with 12% born outside of Canada and 66%
for whom English is not their primary language. Because Sir Simon George
Elementary School scored poorly on the Board’s Learning Opportunities Index, the
staff at Sir Simon George Elementary School recently has begun to come to come
to grips with the issue. The staff has embraced a new vision for this school. In order
to implement this vision, the school staff established several important changes in
the hopes of reversing this school’s low educational ranking.
Professional development for classroom teachers on administering the
Developmental Reading Assessment (DRA) constituted another significant change.
By utilizing this assessment procedure, the school was able to obtain literacy base-
line scores for all of its students. Furthermore, a school district primary literacy
consultant, in concert with the school staff, designated a daily school-wide, two-
hour time block for implementation of an early literacy program.
Literacy research is replete with accounts indicating that early intervention with
at-risk students can effectively increase levels of literacy skills and comprehension.
Action Research in practice: Critical literacy in an urban grade three classroom 421

Such research suggests that a key to successful intervention is to provide students

with programs that emphasize critical thinking strategies (Anyon, 1980; Gunning,
2000; Slavin, 1998).
Critical literacy can be separated from the notion of critical thinking in the fol-
lowing way. Luke (1997) notes that critical approaches to literacy involve “a shift
away from psychological and individualistic models of reading and writing towards
those approaches that use sociological, cultural and discourse theory to reconceptu-
alise the literate subject, textual practices, and classroom pedagogy” (143). He goes
on to state that:
Critical approaches are characterized by a commitment to reshape literacy education in the
interests of marginalized groups of learners, who on the basis of gender, cultural and socio-
economic background have been excluded from access to the discourses and texts of domi-
nant economics and cultures (Luke, 1997, p.143).

This definition of critical literacy is supported by Gee (1996) and Edelsky and
Cherland (2006). Although critical literacy and critical thinking are not necessarily
the same thing, Luke (1997) suggests that “shared across contemporary approaches
to critical literacy is an emphasis on the need for literates to take an interventionist
approach to texts and discourses of all media” (critical literacy) and also requires “a
commitment to the capacity to critique, transform and reconstruct dominant modes
of information” (critical thinking) (p. 150).
Teachers and researchers, therefore, need to understand the complex relationship
between language and power. Research indicates that teacher-generated research
provides teachers with a strong feeling of ownership of both the process and results,
and increases their own professional development (Carson & Sumara; 1997;
Hannay, 1989, 1995; McNiff, 1993). However, despite all the attention given to
strategic skill development for at-risk learners and attention given to the ways in
which teachers acquire their professional knowledge, teachers’ reflections upon the
teaching and learning process has received little attention. In spite of much of the
rhetoric on school reform, it is painfully apparent that we do not actively value the
insights and interpretations of teachers, and it is precisely these insights and inter-
pretations that can effectively improve not only literacy levels as well as compre-
hension but critical literacy strategies as well. For these reasons, the staff approached
this research team for assistance in the development of a critical literacy action
research project.

The critical literacy action research project

In the Fall of 2001, Sir Simon George Elementary School staff invited the research
team to participate in a multi-year action research project, the focus of which was
school wide literacy improvement. The research team consisted of the co-authors, a
graduate research assistant, a school literacy co-ordinator and a school district pri-
mary literacy consultant. The role of this research team was to act as facilitators to
422 10 Action Research

work together with teachers to develop critical literacy capacity among the teachers
and the entire research team. After the initial and obligatory staff meeting in which
the research team was introduce and the project was addressed, the non-school
based researchers worked together with teachers to design the process. From this, in
conjunction with the school district primary literacy consultant, one teacher volun-
teered to design and incorporate lesson plans to address issues of critical literacy in
her grade three classroom. This paper reports on the action research project on criti-
cal literacy that grew out of this initiative. The impact of this project on the teacher
and researchers are reported on later in this paper.
The action research project reported here offers promise for on-going collabora-
tive research into critical literacy for urban students who continue to be at a disad-
vantage as it pertains to literacy, comprehension and critical thinking. The purposes
of this project were to:
• Design a Steps to Action Plan (Mills, 2000) enabling them to effect positive
educational change.
• Assess the effects on student literacy levels of teaching the students critical lit-
eracy strategies,
• Evaluate the effects of an action research strategy on teacher learning and profes-
sional development.
As a corollary to the purposes of the project the staff and administration, in conjunc-
tion with the research team, determined the objectives for this project as being:
• To develop critical literacy strategies for both early at-risk learners and their
teachers,
• To improve literacy teachers’ professional judgment,
• To implement, assess, and evaluate specific strategies of literacy teaching
• To enhance elementary in-service teacher training to support school-wide liter-
acy improvement, critical literacy strategies, and life-long learning.
The significance of this study lies not only in its school-initiated origins, but also in
its potential to contribute to two interrelated areas:
• Critical literacy strategies, by reflecting on how critical thinking and critical lit-
eracy is developed by a teacher, in concert with the research team, in an actual
classroom for at-risk children;
• Action research, particularly an in-depth look at one school’s effort to improve
early literacy for at-risk students.
In the first year of this project much time was invested in outlining the parame-
ters of the research project, including serious school-wide discussion, culminating
in a joint initiative on the methods of literacy instruction for primary students (kin-
dergarten through grade three) in the school. The program of research was based on
the action research methodology loop, “act-reflect-revise” (Mills, 2000), with teach-
ers and their students as they engaged in action research to select and implement
suitable and appropriate practices for critical literacy, as defined by the teachers
themselves.
Action Research in practice: Critical literacy in an urban grade three classroom 423

At the school level, all research members participated in sessions to decide upon
the foundations for the research project based on suitable and appropriate practices
for building critical literacy capacities relating to primary urban students and their
teachers (Comber, Thomson, Wells, 2001). All stages in the process were developed
through consensus, with the research team acting as facilitators for the process. The
teacher and the school district primary literacy consultant designed the lessons.
Learning strategies such as KWL (Thompkins, 1998) and other reflective practices
were included.
The “K-W-L” (what we KNOW—what we WANT to learn—what we have
LEARNED) strategy for reflective thinking (Thompkins, 1998) is outlined below.

K What we KNOW (One’s preconceptions)

Based on my experience, I believe critical literacy can be described as.....

I am now thinking.....

W What we WANT to learn

I wonder.....
What would happen if.....
It’s funny how my students.....
How can I.....

L What we have LEARNED

Developing critical literacy capacities of students and teachers

Practice or strategy for developing critical literacy capacities within this
component.....
When students are engaged in developing critical literacy capacities, it looks like.....
When students are engaged in developing critical literacy capacities, it sounds
like.....
Perhaps (specific student) demonstrates the best response to this strategy because.....
Perhaps (specific student) demonstrates the weakest response to this strategy
because...
For this student to assess his/her critical literacy capacity, what needs to happen?
The opportunity for revision (“Are revisions needed to be made to the action plan
itself at this time?”) follows this reflection, which in turn produces a new
action plan.
424 10 Action Research

At the end of the first year of the study, the research participants reflected upon
the action research project and planned for revision to the research process for the
next year. The previously described K-W-L strategy provided the basis for the struc-
ture of the focus group reflections within the project. The Debbie Miller (2002)
book, Reading with Meaning, was chosen by the participants in this project for its
attention to establishing a framework for creating a culture and climate for critical
literacy. This book is written by a teacher-researcher and reflects goals similar to the
objectives of this critical action research project, providing goals both for teachers
and students regarding how to think more deeply while at the same time working
towards esteem-building and social agency (Luke, 1997). After the grade three
teacher in the project highly endorsed the book, everyone in the project read sample
chapters and agreed that it fit into an operative framework for beginning the project.
The research team particularly liked the way in which Miller (2002) worked at
enabling her students to become more experienced at making meaningful and
thoughtful connections to the stories of their own lives so that they might become
more adept at reading the broader context within which they live. Like Miller, it was
the group’s belief, that the only way to develop responsibility in students is to allow
them to practice it.
With the first year of the project behind them, the critical literacy action research
project began in earnest. The staff felt comfortable with the planning process, and
in September, the following questions were asked of the students of the grade three
teacher who was part of the research team: “Why do people read?” “What do you
see readers doing?” “Where do you see people reading?” These questions and other
questions were used to establish connections with students’ lives and to develop a
greater understanding of their own reading worlds in order to make the context of
the project relevant to them.
Brainstorming with the large group and recording students’ thinking was an
appropriate way to address the first question. In this way, the school district primary
literacy consultant in collaboration with the grade three teacher and the research
team began to outline the project with the grade three students. These questions,
which framed the beginning work with students, revealed much about the children’s
perspectives about reading and also assisted in the selection of relevant teaching
materials.
By October, focus meetings followed the K-W-L format as previously described.
For purposes of framing the discussion, one example from each KWL strategy for
reflective thinking is presented below.

“K” Represents the Research Team’s Current Understanding

of Critical Literacy

The collective research team realized early on that they needed to establish an
understanding of the term “critical literacy”. The research team’s first discussion
regarding preconceptions of what critical literacy means was timely, given Edelsky
Action Research in practice: Critical literacy in an urban grade three classroom 425

and Cherland’s (2006) concern about the popularization and appropriation of the
term “critical” and the tendency to trivialize what critical literacy—and critical
thinking—really means.
From the first meeting: On the meaning of critical literacy, it became clear that
the research team in general was using a variety of definitions of critical literacy.
The researchers referred the team to Luke (1997):
Jamilla: Whatever we are doing needs to be important to us and our belief struc-
tures. Otherwise, what are we doing it for? There needs to be some connection to
ourselves for it to be meaningful practice.
Karyn: Critical literacy is a way to view the world. It’s a key to a democratic edu-
cation. It’s basic in terms of being critical oneself.
Jamilla: We all have different ideas of things in our own heads.... We might think
that we are talking about the same thing, but we’re talking about different things
altogether.
Dianne: ...sharing ownership and trusting...and trusting the students to be able to be
responsible and to think
Suzanne: If teachers don’t ask themselves why, then how do they expect
students to ask why? Many of the students in this particular situation are ESL stu-
dents. We have had grade three students whom teachers were bringing forth as hav-
ing difficulties. They were Canadian-born but were receiving ESL instruction and
couldn’t be considered ESL students any more. We’re masking a problem that could
be deeper than we realize.
This passage, taken from the first discussion concerning the need to define a criti-
cal literacy stance, points to the notion that “critical literacy” needs to be understood
in terms of the dynamics of identity, context and teaching practices employed.
Jamilla acknowledges how one’s own belief structures are connected to classroom
practice. In speaking about her own identity as a young black teacher, she can begin
to see traces of her identity rooted in and through her teaching practices in both
explicit and implicit ways. Dianne connects this thought to the all-important roles
that teachers play in helping to construct their students’ identities through the beliefs
they carry about who the students are and what they believe the students are capable
of. Suzanne reminds us of the need to understand the politics of the ‘local’ literacy
context when she states that, “Many of our students in this particular situation are
ESL students”. Suzanne speaks to the idea that the cultural and political run deep in
literacy and that teachers need to be aware of these factors, particularly if they are
concerned with all students, including “minority” students, gaining a chance to
define themselves. Through this discussion, the team began to consider more deeply
just how literacy practices used in educational settings serve to affirm or disaffirm a
student’s sense of identity and ultimately a student’s chances for “success” in
society.
This initial discussion reveals an important question relevant to a critical literacy
stance: How do we, as teachers, learn to become more experienced so that we might
learn to step outside of ourselves and our own identities to allow multiple identities
in? Perhaps this entails the commitment to be continually vigilant concerning what
426 10 Action Research

conditions truly support literacy, particularly for children of poverty or for those
who have been labeled “at-risk.” These are of course ideological considerations and
cannot be dealt with in short order. However, through beginning with our own teach-
ing practices, and acting locally, we believed that we might move from our local
position to more global issues relevant in literacy education today.
At this point, it may be helpful to briefly look at how literacy has been con-
structed historically. The following definitions illustrate that literacy is storied
according to changing economies, cultures, institutions and possible worlds.
• A literate person is a person who can, with understanding, both read and write a
short, simple statement on his everyday life (UNESCO, 1951).
• Functional literacy is the ability to engage effectively in all those reading activi-
ties normally expected of a literate adult in his community (Hunter &
Harman, 1979).
• [Literacy is] using print and written information to function in society, to achieve
one’s goals, and to develop one’s knowledge and potential (Southam
Literacy, 1987).
These definitions show that literacy is dynamic and that historical interpretations
have driven and continue to drive what represents literacy. Thus what represents
literacy is historically driven and both traces and influences our definitions of liter-
acy and how we use it. As teachers/educators of literacy then, is it not incumbent
upon educators to consider their role(s) in shaping the ‘construct’ of what it is that
literacy embodies? Is it to ask, “Who is deemed to be a ‘literate’ individual, and by
whom”, particularly in these times of a pluralistic milieu in the twenty-first century?
If so, then it would seem that definitions must be chosen well. This re-evaluation of
what constitutes literacy and, by extension, critical literacy, is driven by dramatic
local and global change. Globalization has resulted in the domination of English
(Janks, 2000) and Cummins (1995) has addressed questions raised by the cultural
politics of English as an international language. The issue is at once global and local
as so many of our students are English as a Second Language (ESL) learners, as
borne out by the number of ESL students in this study. Chambers adds another
dimension to the discussion:
To inhabit the multiplicity of cultural borders, historical temporalities and hybrid identities
calls for a state of knowledge, an ethics of the intellect, an aperture in politics, able to
acknowledge more than itself; a state of knowledge that is prepared to suffer modification
and interrogation by what it neither possesses nor can claim as its own…and permits us to
lend our ears to what is unsaid in the discourses we employ (Chambers, 1996, 50).

Chambers’ term, “ a state of knowledge” suggests a growing critical awareness

of the need to acknowledge multiple identities within any enclosed system, includ-
ing educational systems. The Chambers quotation is particularly important when
considering a critical literacy stance because it embodies key elements of identity
and context while considering a state of knowledge capable of “lending our ears to
what is unsaid in the discourses [or teaching practices] we employ.”
Action Research in practice: Critical literacy in an urban grade three classroom 427

In this particular school research context, the research team felt that policy-
makers do not always define the rich cultural diversity of the children and parents in
their school community favourably. While on the surface, multiculturalism is touted
to be beneficial to student learning; there may be issues of prejudice and discrimina-
tion still hiding in the light. Sonia Nieto (1994) points to patterns that encourage
students to move beyond mere tolerance in multicultural education. A quotation
from one of the team members may best express this:
Suzanne: With talking about what you think and see with students, particu-
larly impoverished students like those in our multicultural school, they’re often
written off for various reasons.
Another team member expressed a similar idea in the following way:
Dianne: Our children are incredibly capable but there is somehow a mismatch
between the school’s version of intelligence and what is occurring at home.
The dispositional nature of critical thinking was described:
Karyn: I’ve had students in Special Education who are very intelligent in terms of
the way they use higher order thinking or critical literacy, but it is situational.
Perhaps the key is to make critical thinking more dispositional than situational,
thereby developing critical learning capacities that are derived from critical literacy.
Putting critical literacy into practice takes thought and hard work and the full
time teacher is the one charged with the responsibility of being, accountable, effec-
tive and efficient. Shutz (2000) places this thought in context:
...what we are led to believe about ourselves, what we learn about how we are supposed to
act, the ways we are taught to frame “problems” and even the tools of reason that we use to
solve these problems, do not simply represent neutral skills but are in fact ways of forming
us into particular kinds of subjects. ‘Power’ in this vision does not merely suppress or
restrict but actually produces actions and desires (216).

If critical literacy is to promote democracy, social justice and equity in schools,

then what circumstances need to arise in schools for an increase in democracy and
shared power? Banks (1999) describes a pattern of four levels of multicultural cur-
riculum that parallel the adoption of a critical literacy curriculum. It is often referred
to as a critical literacy curriculum because its definition has expanded to include all
students who tend to be marginalized socially or physically. The curriculum pattern
tends to become increasingly more inclusive as the approach moves through the
inclusion of ethnic heroes into the existing unchanged curriculum to an approach
that includes all elements of the transformative approach but also requires students
to make decisions and take action related to the concept, issue, or problem they have
studied.
428 10 Action Research

“W” Represents the Action Research Plan: What the Research

Team is Seeking to Know

The grade three teacher on the project, Jamilla, wanted to examine the provincial
language arts curriculum with an eye towards understanding patterns of how critical
literacy is understood, mentioned and factored into the grade three Language Arts
curriculum. She began by looking at specific and “global” expectations within sec-
tions of the Ontario Language Curriculum (1997). As the following example sug-
gests, the language curriculum document consisted mainly of decontextualized
skills. In fact, it was difficult to find language directly relevant to critical literacy
practices. In particular, the section under reasoning and ‘critical’ thinking was prob-
lematic because, the skills were not only decontextualized, the term “critical” had
been co-opted and misapplied (Edelsky and Cherland, 2006). The term “critical” no
longer meant critical in many senses of the word. The following example from the
grade three Language Arts curriculum, recently in use states:

Overall Expectations – Grade 3 Reading. By the end of Grade 3,

students will:

• read a variety of fiction and non-fiction materials (e.g., chapter books, children’s
reference books) for different purposes;
• read independently, using a variety of reading strategies;
• express clear responses to written materials, relating the ideas in them to their
own knowledge and experience and to ideas in other materials that they have read;
• select material that they need from a variety of sources;
• understand the vocabulary and language structures appropriate for this grade level;
• Use conventions of written materials to help them understand and use the
materials.
Patterns of critical approaches to curriculum range from the encouragement of
students to engage in explicit criticism of cultural, economic, and political struc-
tures to more neutral approaches which affiliate literacy with individuals’ “thinking
skills” and the weighting of information (Luke and Walton, 1994). It is these “think-
ing skills”, rather than the “explicit criticism of cultural, economic and political
structures” that tend to be emphasized in curriculum guides. In the example below,
critical thinking has been largely reduced to data organization.
Action Research in practice: Critical literacy in an urban grade three classroom 429

Expectations in Specific Areas. By the end of Grade 3,

students will:

Reasoning and Critical Thinking: Knowledge of Language

• identify and restate the main idea in a piece of writing, and cite Structures:
supporting details; • use their knowledge of
• identify and describe some elements of stories (e.g., plot, central word order in oral and
idea, characters, setting); written language to
• distinguish between fact and fiction; determine the meaning of
• begin to make inferences while reading; sentences;
• use familiar vocabulary and the context to determine the meaning Vocabulary Building:
of a passage containing unfamiliar words; • use a variety of
• begin to develop their own opinions by considering some ideas strategies to determine
from various written materials; the meaning of unfamiliar
Understanding of Form and Style: words (e.g., use the
• identify and describe different forms of writing (e.g., poems, context, break the word
stories, plays); into syllables or other
• use their knowledge of the organization and characteristics of recognizable units, use a
different forms of writing as a guide before and during reading (e.g., dictionary, use phonics);
chapters in an adventure story often end with cliff-hangers; menus Use of Conventions:
usually list the items of food on the left and the price of each item • use punctuation to help
on the right); them understand what
they read (e.g.,
exclamation mark,
quotation marks);
• Identify various
conventions of formal
texts and use them to find
information (e.g., table of
contents, chapter titles,
headings, index, glossary,
charts, graphs).

Despite this approach to literacy education, as presented in the grade three

Language Arts curriculum, in practical terms the research team struggled with how
the literacy curriculum might be a useful guide for students, particularly when all
shared the belief that the students were capable language learners and the team
wanted to honor this in their teaching practices. Is the key to using curricular docu-
ments to first be cognizant of language patterns used to structure these documents?
That is to say, must one become more literate in one’s own understanding of these
documents? What research does the document rest on? What belief structures are
inherent in the teaching practices espoused within this document? How is language
learning understood? For example, is it anchored in development stage theory?
Cultural studies theory? Ultimately, what are the purposes of literacy and who gets
to define these purposes? And why? Moreover, team members in the study often
commented on the tension between the need for teaching explicit skill instruction
and critical literacy practices:
430 10 Action Research

“What kinds of things do you do when you come to a word you don’t know?” and it took
me about twenty minutes to get them to say something other than “sounding out”.... So I
just have to look at the problem more deeply because they don’t look at it as the “big pic-
ture”. Decoding and comprehension go together.... But they think, “If I have a problem with
reading, it’s because I don’t know what that word says. It’s about that word or these lists of
words that I have to know.”... This is the piece that we need to help them understand - the
whole and I’m having a problem with this part here by just letting them be aware of the
things they need to do to get to the next level, instead of keeping it a secret that only the
teacher knows (Jamilla).
It makes sense to wrap the strategies they need to know around it, such as decoding, and to
understand their thinking processes. We’d have to have an open dialogue with them whether
it be direct skill instruction or crit. lit. (Dianne).

In reading this text, some readers may imagine that this is all well and good but
what about teaching reading and writing skills? Of course this is a valid concern,
particularly given that so many students continue to fail in school despite the con-
certed efforts of educators. Rather than fuel the ‘either/or’ debate over whether the
central purposes of literacy education should focus on strategic reading or reading
to make sense of life, perhaps a literacy model that incorporates both sides of the
debate is useful. Freebody and Luke (1990) add to this discussion through their
conceptualization of literate practices as involving four roles—code-breaker, mean-
ing-maker, text user and text analyst. Being a code breaker involves understanding
the sound symbol relationship and the alphabetic principles. Being text participant
or “meaning-maker” calls upon the reader to draw inferences, using background
knowledge to fill out unexplicated aspects of the text. Being a text user means know-
ing how to use a variety of texts for a variety of purposes in real life situations—For
example, reading instructions on a soup can versus writing a friendly letter versus
reading instructions on how to put a piece of complex equipment together. Being a
text analyst means applying critical discourse analysis and asking questions about
absences in texts, how gendered cultural storylines work across texts, who texts are
written for, who benefits from a particular storyline and how might it have been
written differently.
To return to the previous teaching event involving Jamilla’s concern regarding
the teaching of explicit skills and critical literacy practices, the role of meaning-
maker and text analyst were the literacy practices that were deliberately invoked.
Although the role of code breaker was used earlier in the day through such literacy
practices as the morning message and making words, some students spontaneously
modeled the role of text-user.
Bearing this in mind, reflections on the first of a series of fifteen-minute mini-
lessons with the students were also based on the “K-W-L” strategy. This was accom-
plished by specifically tying critical literacy into the curriculum guidelines by
accessing students’ prior knowledge of what their experiences of critical literacy
were like. This lesson dealt with “Looking at the Big Picture” —referring back to
Jamilla’s earlier comment that the students do not see the ‘big picture’, meaning that
the students do not often discuss patterns of exclusion or marginalization or under-
stand the social context of reading—through a large-group brainstorming session
Action Research in practice: Critical literacy in an urban grade three classroom 431

with the children. Examples of priming questions were, “Why do people need to
learn to read”? and “Does everyone [around the world] have the same chance to
learn to read”? Responses were recorded on a wall chart.
An additional critical literacy pedagogic activity was developed around “How to
chose a book for reading.” Connections were made with students by discussing
books about social issues. Again brainstorming was used to identify strategies for
selecting an appropriate book for independent reading. These strategies were
recorded on another chart. A third theme dealt with decoding strategies, discussed
earlier, through the priming question of “What do you do when you come to a word
you don’t know?” Strategies were recorded on an additional chart so that the stu-
dents would begin to articulate more strategies than just “sounding out.” This fol-
lows up on similar work already happening in the classroom, allowing Jamilla to
find the balance that she was seeking between engaging children in critical literacy
and explicit literacy skills teaching.
A further fifteen-minute mini-lesson set the routines for “Sharing and Celebrating”
by recording different thinking strategies. As we worked with students on an ongo-
ing basis, their ideas were recorded on a chart called “Strategies for Sharing Our
Thinking.” Miller (2002) calls this “Making Tracks of Our Thinking.” The priming
critical question for this instance of meta-cognitive thinking was “What does think-
ing about reading look like, sound like and feel like?” It was revealing to see the
students’ thinking as we learned together throughout the project.
Mohammed, for example, suggested that the “teacher reminds us that we can use
anything in our life” in order to learn. He goes on to note that TV has helped him
make connections to literature and he went on to talk about how Muslims are now
patterned as “the bad guys” in the “big news” story because of 9/11. Mohammed
takes this personally and makes connections to patterns in the world he knows
(Delpit, 1995). As an immigrant, new to Canada and a Muslim, Mohammed’s com-
ment reveals his own feeling of insecurity on a global level, but also shows how safe
he feels in being able to reveal his feelings on the local level, within his classroom.
Mohammed’s grade three teacher acknowledges that many of her students watch
a lot of television. However, she attempts to help them be more critical or discerning
in their choices of programs to watch and how to critique systems of domination. In
other words, Jamilla recognizes that television is the foremost source of information
available to many children living in poverty, and otherwise, and is working towards
the development of agency in her students.
One of the dilemmas encountered by both teachers and instructors, interested in
the promotion of critical literacy in teacher education programs, revolves around
how to keep the dialogue hopeful when one begins to question socially patterned
constructions of “the truth”. This may necessitate a curriculum for learning that
allows students to understand not only the message that is presented, but also to
make connections and develop patterns with their own lives and lived experiences
(Cooper and White, 2004).
The following spontaneous piece of writing is an example of a poem from Erina,
a grade three student. Entitled “A Poem about Hope,” this poem is dedicated to her
teachers.
432 10 Action Research

A Poem about Hope

Don’t look in the
stocking’s or under the
tree. The thing that we’re
looking for is something
we can’t see. You can’t
feel it or tuch it but
it will tuch you it
move’s with you grow’s
with you. It will always
follow you. It’s deeper then
snow stronger then ice.
The gift that we resev
is the gift of hope.
– Erina (8 years of age)

By the end of this “W” phase of the K-W-L strategy for reflective thinking, in
conjunction with the research team, Jamilla, the grade three teacher, had identified
what she wanted to learn. She wanted the research team to help clarify her under-
standing of the word “critical”, what critical literacy is like in practice and how to
use the curriculum document to reflect her own teaching practice. Examining under-
lying assumptions of the literacy curriculum was not a bad place to begin.
Constructing lessons that evoked questions about student understandings about the
social context of literacy followed.
Inglis and Willinsky (2006) remind us of the importance of revisiting current
thinking about democracy in order to consider what constitutes democracy in action.
At the heart of our actions and in those teachable moments rests the need for con-
tinuous critical reflection. The “W” in our reflection strategy, then, is useful only in
as much as it provides the pattern or the framework to continually ask those difficult
questions so fundamental to critical literacy and a democratic education for all stu-
dents. This takes humility and desire or, perhaps as Erina suggests, hope which is
deeper than snow or ice.

“L” Represents Critical Literacy: What the Research

Team Learned

The research recounted above suggests a need to continue to challenge patterns that
promote taken-for-granted assumptions embedded in existing orthodoxies that com-
prise research and teaching practice. This may be accomplished through re-framing
questions to examine not only what has been offered but also what has been miss-
ing. Delpit (1998) points out that the key may be to understand the variety of mean-
ings available for any human interaction, and not to assume that the voice of majority
speaks for all. In this study about critical literacy for urban school children, the
research team began to notice where students’ voices were excluded from issues
that affected them in particular. For example, Suzanne reminded us of the need to
Action Research in practice: Critical literacy in an urban grade three classroom 433

understand the politics of the ‘local’ literacy context, “Many of our students in this
particular situation are ESL students”, and their voices may not be able to be heard.
Cultural and political patterns run deep in literacy and teachers need to be aware of
this if they are to be concerned with all students, including “minority” students,
gaining a chance to define themselves.
Further, in this study, Jamilla, the grade three teacher on the project, was keen to
examine how the provincial language arts curriculum could be used as a document
to encourage the use of critical literacy strategies. Jamilla’s questioning helped the
research team to understand that, while schools have been fairly successful at teach-
ing essential literacies, such as code-breakers and text participants (Vasquez, 2000),
schools and their policy makers may not adequately support the role of text analyst,
a potential critical literacy strategy, which may help all students understand how the
text positions them with respect to social patterns of power that include language
usage. This occurs because the pattern of curricular language appropriates and neu-
tralizes potentially critical literacy strategies. The research team learned that per-
haps the key to using curricular documents is to recognize how language patterns
are used to structure these documents. To become more literate in one’s own under-
standing of these documents may be to ask such questions as: How is language
learning understood? What belief structures are inherent in the teaching practices
espoused within this document? What research does the document rest on? Is the
document anchored in a specific perspective of education theory? Ultimately, what
are the purposes of literacy, of education, and who gets to define these purposes?
And why?
Given that an important goal of critical literacy is to give voice to critical
approaches to reshape literacy education in the interests of marginalized learners
excluded from access to dominant economics and cultures (Luke 1997), it is under-
standably difficult to ensure that the role the text analyst and other critically literate
roles are valued in the classroom. Perhaps, as Heffernan and Lewison (2000) sug-
gest, teachers are frequently discouraged from using their positions of power to
persuade students to adopt certain positions. As teachers struggle to keep their opin-
ions to themselves, they may exclude important issues, in favour of the dominant
curriculum. This reluctance was evident in the research team itself. If students do
not gain from mandated curriculum or policies relating to the development of criti-
cal literacy, directly or over the long term, such curricular policies may not be useful
educational policies. It is incumbent upon all educators to be able and willing to
develop, identify and implement curricular policies that are inclusive, for the benefit
of all students.
To this end, Banks (1999) describes four levels of a curriculum that is sensitive
to issues of inclusion. The first level, “The Contributions Approach” is probably the
most frequently utilized form of multicultural education, and is characterized by the
addition of ethnic heroes. The curriculum remains essentially unchanged. Little
attention is given to the ethnic groups either before or after the event, nor is the
cultural significance or history of the event explored in any depth. Social issues are
ignored and this approach represents a rather shallow look at culture and inclusive
practices.
434 10 Action Research

The second and third levels represent the first phase of curriculum restructuring, yet
issues are presented from a dominant perspective. Individuals or groups of people from
marginalized groups in society are included, yet racial and cultural inequities or oppres-
sion are not necessarily addressed. A teacher might introduce a unit by studying groups
who are benefiting from or being disadvantaged by the implementation of certain poli-
cies and practices, in the absence of a complete transformation of the curriculum.
The fourth approach includes elements of the previous three approach but adds
components that require students to make decisions and to take action related to the
concept, issue, or problem they have studied. This approach requires that students
not only explore and understand the dynamics of oppression, but also commit to
making decisions and changing the system through social action. The major goal of
this approach is to teach students thinking and decision making skills, to empower
them, and help them acquire a sense of political awareness and efficacy.
Banks’ (1999) description of these four levels may be useful for teachers who
wish to benefit their students by becoming more enlightened about established pat-
terns in which their own self-understandings prevent them from being properly or
appropriately aware of social and political mechanisms.

Conclusion

If a central aim of education can become the critical transmission, interpretation and
development of the cultural traditions of our society, there is the need for a form of
research that focuses its energies and resources on the policies, processes and prac-
tices by which this aim is pursued (Carr and Kemmis, 1989). While there is still a
battle raging within the field of literacy over the central goals of literacy education
(For a more complete discussion, see Short, 1999), struggling literacy students are
at the heart of much of what we do as literacy educators and this struggle is mani-
fested in the following questions: What conditions truly support literacy learning in
the pluralistic milieu of the twenty-first century? How do literacy practices used in
educational settings serve to affirm or disaffirm a student’s own sense of identity?
Why consider identity and language teaching in the same breath?
Such questions serve to flag the notion that outside pressures, a globalized society
notwithstanding, are being brought to bear on curricula and programs provided by
Canadian schools, and potentially, in schools world-wide. At issue is the problem of
“recognizing patterns” in order to develop a critical awareness to understand what is
truly important in our schools and to develop standards around such critical ideas as
what it is we are doing, why we are doing it and who the major benefactors of these
transactions are. There is, therefore, a need for a critical literacy capable of recogniz-
ing such patterns, asking questions about innate standards such as curriculum docu-
ments, and asking about what is important to schooling. These voices, in order to be
heard must respect the notion of a democratic education not just for some citizens but
for all citizens. Hopeful trends are beginning to emerge. Changes, and dare we say
improvements, are being made in individual classrooms and within schools as well.
Action Research in practice: Critical literacy in an urban grade three classroom 435

References

Banks, J. (1999). An introduction to multicultural education. Boston: Allyn

and Bacon.
Bourdieu, P. (1977). Outline of a theory of practice. Translated by R. Nice.
Cambridge; New York: Cambridge University Press.
Carr, W. & Kemmis, S. (1989). Becoming critical: Education, knowledge and action
research. London & Philadelphia: The Falmer Press.
Chambers, I. (1996). The post-colonial question: Common skies, divided horizons.
London: Routledge.
Comber, B., Thomson, P. & Wells, M. (2001). Critical literacy finds a place: Writing
and social action in a low-income Australian grade two/three classroom.
Elementary School Journal 101(4), 451-464.
Cummins, J. (1995). Heritage language teaching in Canadian schools. In O. Garcia
and C. Baker (Eds.), Policy and practice in bilingual education: Extending the
foundation, (pp. 134-138). Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters.
Delpit, L. (1995). Other people’s children: Cultural conflict in the classroom.
New York: New Press.
Delpit, L. (1998). The silenced dialogue: Power and pedagogy in education of other
people’s children. Harvard Educational Review, 58(3), 280-298.
Edelsky C. & Cherland, M. (2006). A critical issue in Critical Literacy: The
“Popularity Effect.” In K. Cooper & R. E. White (Eds.), The practical critical
educator. Dordrecht, NL: Springer.
Freebody, P. & Luke, A. (1990). “Literacies” programs: Debates and demands in
cultural context. Prospect: the Journal of Adult Migrant Education Programs,
5(30), 7-16.
Gee, J. P. (1996). Social linguistics and literacies. London, UK: Taylor and Francis.
Janks, H. (2000). Domination, access, diversity and design: A synthesis for critical
literacy education. Educational Review, 52(2), pp. 175-186.
Heath, S. B. (1983). Ways with words: Language, life and work in communities and
classrooms. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Heffernan, A., & Lewison, M. (2000). Making real-world issues our business:
Critical literacy in a third-grade classroom. Primary Voices, K-6, 9(2), pp. 15-21.
Hunter, C. S. & Harmon, D. (1979). Adult illiteracy in the United States: A report
to the Ford Foundation. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Luke, A. (1997). Critical approaches to literacy. In V. Edwards & D. Corson (Eds.)
Encyclopedia of Language and Education, Vol. 2: Literacy (143-151). Dordrecht,
NL: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Luke, A & Walton, C. (1994). Critical reading: Teaching and assessing. In T. Hansen
& T. N. Postlewaite (Eds.) International encyclopaedia of education, 2nd
Edition, (1194-1198). Oxford, UK: Pergamon.
Miller, D. (2002). Reading with meaning: Teaching comprehension in the primary
grades. Portland, ME: Stenhouse.
436 10 Action Research

Mills, G. E. (2000). Action research: A guide for the teacher researcher. Upper
Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Nieto, S. (1994). Affirmation, solidarity, and critique: Moving beyond tolerance in
multicultural education. Multicultural Education, Spring 1994, pp 9-38.
Ontario Curriculum Grades 1-8, Language. (1997). Ontario: Ministry of Education
and Training.
Short, K. (1999). The search for “balance” in a literature-rich curriculum. Theory
into Practice 38(3). 130-137.
Shutz, A. (2000). Teaching freedom? Postmodern perspectives. Review of
Educational Research 70(2), 215-251.
Southam Literacy, (1987). In P. Calamai. Broken words: Why five million Canadians
are illiterate. Toronto, ON: Southam Press.
Thompkins, G. E. (1998). 50 Literacy strategies: Step by step. Upper Saddle River,
NJ: Prentice Hall.
UNESCO (1951). A definition of fundamental education. Retrieved from http://
portal.unesco.org/en/ev.php-URL_ID=13136&URL_DO=DO_TOPIC&URL_
SECTION=201.html
Vasquez, V. (2000). Our way: Using the everyday to create a critical literacy curricu-
lum. Primary Voice, K-6, 9(2), pp 8-13.
Endnotes
The authors of this paper would like to acknowledge Dianne Riehl, Jamilla Arindell,
Cindy Bird, Suzanne Thomson and the grade three students at “Sir Simon George”
Elementary School for their assistance with this project. Pseudonyms were deemed
unnecessary by the research team.

References

Action Evaluation Collaborative. (2016). Participatory action learning: Part 1 – Insights into a
catalyst for transformative change. Retrieved August 12, 2019, from: https://actionevaluation-
collaborative.exposure.co/participatory-action-learning#!
Argyris, C. (1999). On organizational learning. Blackwell.
Argyris, C., & Schön, D. (1974). Theory in practice: Increasing personal effectiveness. Jossey-Bass.
Argyris, C., & Schön, D. (1978). Organizational learning: A theory of action perspective.
Addison Wesley.
Baum, F., MacDougall, C., & Smith, D. (2004). Participatory action research. Journal
of Epidemiology & Community Health, 60(10), 854–857. https://doi.org/10.1136/
jech.2004.028662
Blanning, T. C. W. (1998). The French revolution: Class war or culture clash? (2nd ed.). St.
Martin’s Press.
Boog, B., Coenen, H., Keune, A. W. M., & Lammerts, R. (1996). Theory and practice of action
research—With special reference to the Netherlands. Tilbury University Press.
Burns, A. R. (2015). Action research. In J. D. Brown & C. Coombe (Eds.), The Cambridge guide to
research in language teaching and learning (1st ed., pp. 99–104). Cambridge University Press.
Calhoun, C. J. (2002). Contemporary sociological theory. Wiley-Blackwell.
Cammarota, J. (2011). From hopelessness to hope: Social justice pedagogy in urban education and
youth development. Urban Education, 46(4), 828–844.
References 437

Charles, L., & Ward, N. (2007). Generating change through research: Action research and its impli-
cations (Discussion Paper Series No. 10). Centre for Rural Economy Newcastle University.
Chisholm, R., & Elden, M. (1993). Features of emerging action research. Human Relations, 46(2),
275–298.
Clifford Simplican, S. (2009). Disabling democracy: How disability reconfigures deliberative
democratic norms. APSA 2009 Toronto Meeting Paper. Retrieved August 8, 2019, from:
https://ssrn.com/abstract=1451092
Corlett, S. (2012). Participant learning in and through research as reflexive dialogue: Being
“struck” and the effects of recall. Management Learning, 44(5), 453–469.
Cummings, S., Bridgman, T., & Brown, K. (2016). Unfreezing change as three steps: Rethinking
Kurt Lewin’s legacy for change management. Human Relations, 69(1), 33–60.
de Koning, K., & Martin, M. (1996). Participatory research in health: Issues and experiences.
Zed Books.
Dewey, J. (1897/2019). Moral principles in education and my pedagogic creed by John Dewey.
Myers Education Press.
Dick, B. (1997). Action learning and action research. Retrieved August 12, 2019, from: http://
www.aral.com.au/resources/actlearn.html
Elliott, J. (1991). Action research for educational change. Open University Press.
Ellis, R. (2010). Second language acquisition, teacher education and language pedagogy. Language
Teaching, 43(2), 182–201.
Fals-Borda, O., & Rahman, M. A. (1991). Action and knowledge: Breaking the monopoly with
participatory action research. Rowman & Littlefield.
Fetterman, D. M., Kaftarian, S., & Wandersman, A. (Eds.). (1996). Empowerment evaluation:
Knowledge and tools for self-assessment and accountability. Sage.
Forsyth, D. R. (2019). Group dynamics. Cengage.
Freire, P. (1970/2000). Pedagogy of the oppressed (30th Anniversary ed.). Continuum.
French, W. L., & Bell, C. (1973). Organization development: Behavioral science interventions for
organization improvement. Prentice-Hall.
Greenwood, D. J., & Levin, M. (2007). Introduction to action research: Social research for social
change (2nd ed.). Sage.
Griffith, M. (2009). Action research for/as/mindful of social justice. In S. Noffke & B. Somekh
(Eds.), The SAGE handbook of educational action research (pp. 85–98). SAGE.
Habermas, J. (1962/1991). The structural transformation of the public sphere: An inquiry into a
category of bourgeois society. MIT Press.
Habermas, J. (1985). The theory of communicative action: Volume 1: Reason and the rationaliza-
tion of society. Beacon Press.
Haggbloom, S. J., Warnick, R., Warnick, J. E., Jones, V. K., Yarbrough, G. L., Russell, T. M.,
Borecky, C. M., McGahhey, R., Powell, J. L., III, Beavers, J., & Monte, E. (2002). The 100
most eminent psychologists of the 20th century. Review of General Psychology, 6(2), 139–152.
Heron, J. (1996). Co-operative inquiry: Research into the human condition. Sage.
Herr, K., & Anderson, G. L. (2005). The action research dissertation: A guide for students and
faculty. Sage Publications Inc.
Howard-Grabman, L. (1996). ‘Planning together’: Developing community plans to address pri-
ority maternal and neonatal health problems in rural Bolivia. In K. de Koning & M. Martin
(Eds.), Participatory research in health: Issues and experiences (pp. 153–163). Zed Books.
Kavannagh, A., Daly, J., & Jolley, D. (2007). Research methods, evidence and public health.
Australian & New Zealand Journal of Public Health, 26(4), 299–396.
Kemmis, S., & Carr, W. (1986/2002). Becoming critical: Education knowledge and action
research. Routledge Falmer.
Kemmis, S., & McTaggart, R. (2000). Participatory action research. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln
(Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research (pp. 567–595). SAGE.
Kincheloe, J. L. (2008). Critical pedagogy primer (2nd ed.). Peter Lang.
Koshy, V. (2010). Action research for improving educational practice: A step-by-step guide (2nd
ed.). Sage.
438 10 Action Research

Lasch-Quinn, E. (2017). Race experts: How racial etiquette, sensitivity training and new age ther-
apy hijacked the civil rights movement. Rowman & Littlefield.
LeCompte, M. (1995). Some notes on power, agenda, and voice: A researcher’s personal evolution
toward critical collaboration research. In P. McLaren & J. Giarelli (Eds.), Critical theory and
educational research (pp. 91–112). State University of New York Press.
Lewin, K. (1943). Defining the “Field at a Given Time”. Psychological Review, 50(3), 292–310.
Lewin, K. (1946). Action research and minority problems. Journal of Social Issues, 2(4), 34–46.
Lewin, K. (1947). Frontiers in group dynamics: Concept, method and reality in social sci-
ence; social equilibria and social change. Human Relations, 1, 5–41. https://doi.
org/10.1177/001872674700100103
Lewin, K. (1948). Resolving social conflicts: Selected papers on group dynamics. Harper & Row.
Lewin, K. (1958). Group decision and social change. Holt, Rinehart & Winston.
Maksimovic, J. (2010). Historical development of action research in social sciences. Factas
Universitatis: Philosophy, Sociology, Psychology & History, 9(1), 119–124.
McCoy, D., Sanders, D., Baum, F., Narayan, T., & Legge, D. (2004). Pushing the international
health research agenda towards equity and effectiveness. Lancet, 364(9445), 1630–1631.
McNamara, C. (2006). Field guide to consulting and organizational development: A collaborative
and systems approach to performance, change and learning. Authenticity Consulting.
McNiff, J. (1988). Action research: Principles and practice. Macmillan Education.
McTaggart, R. (1991). Action research: A short modern history. Deakin University Press.
Meyer, J. (2000). Using qualitative methods in health related action research. British Medical
Journal, 320(178). https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.320.7228.178
Mihăiloaie, C. (2014). What is the difference between single-loop and double-loop learn-
ing? Retrieved August 13, 2019, from: https://www.performancemagazine.org/
what-is-the-difference-between-single-loop-and-double-loop-learning/
Monk, R. (1992). Wittgenstein: The duty of genius. Penguin.
O’Brien, R. (2001). Um exame da abordagem metodológica da pesquisa ação [An Overview of
the Methodological Approach of Action Research]. In R. Richardson (Ed.), Teoria e Prática
da Pesquisa Ação [Theory and practice of action research]. João Pessoa, BR: Universidade
Federal da Paraíba. (English version) Retrieved, August 8, 2019, from: http://www.web.
ca/~robrien/papers/arfinal.html
Owens, R. G., & Valesky, T. C. (2015). Organizational behavior in education: Leadership and
school reform. Pearson.
Payrow Shabani, O. A. (2003). Democracy, power and legitimacy: The critical theory of Jürgen
Habermas. University of Toronto Press.
Rahman, M. A. (2008). Some trends in the praxis of participatory action research. In P. Reason &
H. Bradbury (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of action research (2nd ed., pp. 49–62). Sage.
Reason, P., & Bradbury, H. (2001). Handbook of action research: Participative inquiry and prac-
tice. SAGE.
Riel, M. (2019). Understanding collaborative action research. Center For Collaborative Action
Research, Pepperdine University, Malibu, CA. Retrieved, August 12, 2019, from: http://cadres.
pepperdine.edu/ccar/define.html
Rogers, E. (1994). A history of communication study: A biological approach. The Free Press.
Sagor, R. (2000). Guiding school improvement with action research. ASCD.
Smith, M. K. (2001). Kurt Lewin, groups, experiential learning and action research. The
Encyclopedia of Informal Education. Retrieved, August 8, 2019, from; http://www.infed.org/
thinkers/et-lewin.htm
Stenhouse, L. (1975). An introduction to curriculum research and development. Heinemann.
Wallerstein, N., Duran, B., Oetzel, J. G., & Minkler, M. (2017). On community-based participatory
research. In N. Wallerstein, B. Duran, J. G. Oetzel, & M. Minkler (Eds.), Community-Based
participatory research for health (3rd ed., pp. 3–16). Jossey-Bass.
Weng, F. (2014). Comparing the philosophy of Jürgen Habermas and Michel Foucault. Inquiries,
6(9), 1–2.
10 Action Research 439

Wenger, E. (1999). Communities of practice: Learning, meaning, and identity. Cambridge

University Press.
Whitehead, J. (2009). Generating living theory and understanding in action research studies.
Action Research, 7(1), 85–99.
Zeichner, K. M., & Noffke, S. E. (2001). Practitioner research. In V. Richardson (Ed.), Handbook
of research on teaching (4th ed., pp. 298–330). American Educational Research Association.