AN ACTION RESEARCH APPROACH TO CURRICULUM DEVELOPMENT

8/14/2019 AN ACTION RESEARCH APPROACH TO CURRICULUM DEVELOPMENT

1/4

An Action Research Approach To

Curriculum Development

Phil Riding, Sue Fowell and Phil Levy

Computer-Supported Collaborative Work And Learning

A new research group has recently been established in the Department, focusing upon electronic support for

collaborative learning and work. In the area of computer-supported collaborative learning (CSCL), we are exploring

and developing new pedagogic models for learning, using electronic support and learner-centred approaches. For

example, our current activities involve the exploitation of appropriate technology to support open and distance

learning, and the design of curricula based upon constructivist and experiential learning principles (Duffy &Jonassen, 1992; Kolb, 1984). The research group supports departmental teaching and learning innovations as well as

pursuing its wider research agenda. In the area of computer-supported collaborative work (CSCW), we are interested

in the changing contexts for collaborative work offered by new technologies, from both managerial and social-

psychological perspectives. The British Library has recently awarded the group a grant to undertake a sixteen-month

project entitled Communicating Effectively in the Networked Library.

Action Research

Action research into our own teaching practice is an important source of learning for the group. Here, we describethe nature of action research, and describe its use in the on-going development and evaluation of a new

undergraduate module. We hope to show that an action research approach to teaching can be used to improve

teaching and learning practice.

Action research has been used in many areas where an understanding of complex social situations has been sought

in order to improve the quality of life. Among these are industrial, health and community work settings. Kurt Lewin,

often cited as the originator of action research (McKernan, 1991), used the methodology in his work with people

affected by post-war social problems. Action research approaches to educational research were adopted in the late

60s and early 70s by the teacher- researcher movement in the secondary education sector. This sought to bring thepractising classroom teacher into the research process as the most effective person to identify problems and to find

solutions.We believe that an action research approach can contribute very positively to activity within the tertiary sector

concerned with teaching quality issues, and with national Teaching Quality Assessment initiatives. As "reflective

practitioners" (Schon,1983), we can achieve greater ownership of the evaluative process by becoming systematically

self-assessing, alongside, and feeding into, external assessment processes:

"Through systematic, controlled action research, higher education teachers can becomemore professional, more interested in pedagogical aspects of higher education and more

motivated to integrate their research and teaching interests in a holistic way. This, in turn,

can lead to greater job satisfaction, better academic programmes, improvement of studentlearning and practitioners insights and contributions to the advancement of knowledge in

higher education."

(Zuber-Skerritt, 1982: 15)

Despite progress in understanding of the way in which people learn and the design of learning environments,

teaching practice in higher education often remains unaffected. Traditionally, lecturers have not been encouraged to

draw upon theoretical developments as a means of improving curriculum design and delivery. However, more

recently, a number of initiatives at national and local levels have been established to create the conditions for

innovation in these activities, and teaching/learning is becoming recognised as a more valid area of enquiry for

academics across all disciplines, rather than as the unique preserve of specialists.

Action research methodology offers a systematic approach to introducing innovations in teaching and learning. It

seeks to do this by putting the teacher in the dual role of producer of educational theory, and user of that theory. This


2/4

is both a way of producing knowledge about higher education learning and teaching, and a powerful way of

improving learning and teaching practice. No separation need be made between the design and delivery of teaching,

and the process of researching these activities, thereby bringing theory and practice closer together.

A variety of forms of action research have evolved (Carr & Kemmis, 1986) . All adopt a methodical, iterative

approach embracing problem identification, action planning, implementation, evaluation, and reflection. Theinsights gained from the initial cycle feed into planning of the second cycle, for which the action plan is modified

and the research process repeated (Figure 1).

Kolb (1984) extended this model to offer a conception of the action research cycle as a learning process, whereby

people learn and create knowledge by critically reflecting upon their own actions and experiences, forming abstract

concepts, and testing the implications of these concepts in new situations. Practitioners can create their own

knowledge and understanding of a situation and act upon it, thereby improving practice and advancing knowledge in

the field.

Action research has a number of further distinctive features, as described by Zuber-Skerritt, (1982). For her, action

research is:

Criticalcollaborative enquiry by

Reflectivepractitioners who are

Accountable in making the results of their enquiry public,

Self-evaluative in their practice, and engaged in

Participativeproblem-solving and continuing professional development.

According to this view, action research is critical in the sense that practitioners not only look for ways to improve

their practice within the various constraints of the situation in which they are working, but are also critical changeagents of those constraints, and of themselves. It is reflective in that participants analyse and develop concepts and

theories about their experiences. Action researchers are accountable in that they aim to make their learning process

and its results public, both to each other and to other interested practitioners, using accessible terminology. Their

practice is self-evaluated in that the reflective and analytical insights of the researcher- practitioners themselves form

the basis of the developmental process. Action research is participative in that those involved contribute equally to

the inquiry, and collaborative in that the researcher is not an expert doing research from an external perspective, but

a partner working with and for those affected by the problem and the way in which it is tackled.

Curriculum Development

We have decided to take a group-based action research approach to the development of an introductory

undergraduate module on the use of computer-mediated communications, entitled Elements of Information

Management: communicating effectively in the networked organisation. This activity has been supported by funding

from Sheffield University Curriculum Development Fund, enabling one of us to devote time to formalising a

suitable action research approach. We hope to develop a model based upon our experience which will be transferable

to other curriculum development initiatives.

Our curriculum design seeks to address two major objectives in undergraduate education: firstly, to enable studentsto experience "deep" learning; and secondly, to facilitate the development of transferable skills. It has long been

recognised that traditional teaching techniques often fail to encourage "deep" learning of subject content, which goes


3/4

beyond short-term rote memorisation to enable the assimilation of new knowledge in a way which allows re-

application to novel situations (Entwhistle, 1988). Strategies to develop transferable skills in areas such as thinking

and learning, self-management, communication, group work and information management, are intended to prepare

students for work outside of the academic contexts in which they are learned initially.

The teaching strategy we have decided upon uses experiential and constructivist learning principles (Duffy &Jonassen, 1992; Kolb,1984;Boud, et al., 1985). For much of the module, students are engaged in a group-based

collaborative project supported by the use of computer-mediated communication technologies such as electronicmail, asynchronous conferencing and synchronous chat. This is complemented by a range of individually-based

learning activities. Students are provided with a range of on-line information resources, and have access to tutor

support via electronic mail and face-to-face meetings as necessary. A major issue for us as action researchers is to

come to an understanding of the nature and level of support required by students to gain the most from their learning

activities. A key question associated with this is: what is the necessary balance between externally-imposed structure

and control and the students freedom to be self-directed?A number of features of the way we have decided to work on this module mark the approach as being one of action

research:We aim to apply the model offered by the action research cycle.

Although not yet complete, the development of the module is following the action research cycle illustrated earlier.

By completion of the first cycle, we will have:

identified a number of objectives and formed initial working hypotheses about meeting them. For instance,

a key objective is to provide an appropriate framework for deep learning, for which we believe it will be

necessary to encourage maximum student ownership of the learning process;

planned a curriculum model and devised materials and processes to support it. For instance, a key feature of

our curriculum model is students' engagement in collaborative group project work. Materials and processes

to support this include process workbooks and learning diaries for individual work, process workshops to

support positive group functioning, and on-line tutor support.

put these into practice by running the module. The module is based upon one hour of theory workshop and

two hours of project work per week, over one semester. The main form of assessment is by coursework (the

group project), supplemented by individually-produced learning diaries.

made observations on our practice and evaluated its effects. Evaluation and self-assessment strategies

include a range of on-going student feedback mechanisms and tutor debriefings.

reflected upon the results of the evaluation, in preparation for modifying our practice for the second

implementation of the module. For instance, at present the choice of focus for student project work is

relatively limited. Given that students participating in the module come from a very wide diversity ofacademic disciplines, which are likely to hold distinctive perspectives on computer-mediated

communication, we would like to open this up to greater student choice in future if appropriate.

We intend that the inquiry is critical in spirit and purpose.

We believe that it is useful for our own development to perceive ourselves as a "critical community" of practitionerswho not only want to improve the quality of teaching and learning in higher education within the constraints and

practical considerations imposed upon us, but who also seek to be change agents of those constraints. For instance,

assessment by examination is traditionally imposed at University level for this type of module; we anticipate and

hope that its outcomes will justify the future elimination of this form of assessment in future implementation.We aim to be reflective and self-evaluating.

Insights gained from reflection and analysis of our practice will be fed back into practice. There will be continuous

re-assessment of the module and its structure. Built into the module are mechanisms which remind and encourage us

to reflect systematically on our activities. For instance, as tutors we keep a collaborative on-line tutor diary inwhich we share our reflections on teaching performance, content, course structure, student response, etc., relating

them to prior experience and to teaching/learning theory. Individual experience is thus made available between

colleagues for comment and analysis, and we attempt to challenge as well as support each other. This semi-public

sharing of experience creates a collegial, collaborative approach to our personal professional development.We are accountable.

We intend to make public the results of our evaluation, and the process by which it was achieved, both locally and

more widely.

We are engaged in participative problem-solving.

Those doing the research and those doing the teaching are one and the same. We have not employed external

evaluators to assess the module; rather, we work together to gather data during its development and implementation


4/4

which will then be analysed collectively, taking account of the point of view of each of us. We believe that reporting

of the project should similarly embrace all points of view, and reports will be jointly written.

Conclusion

We do not expect to achieve a cut-and-dried solution to the objectives we have identified, and we are not concerned

with producing a strictly generalisable model of learning or teaching. However, we do hope that fellow practitioners

will find our experiences useful, both as an example of action research and as a curriculum model. We wouldwelcome communication with others working in similar ways on curriculum development within the field of

information studies.

References

Boud, D. et al. (1985) Reflection: Turning Experience into Learning. London: Kogan Page.Return to text

Carr, W. and Kemmis, S. (1986) Becoming Critical: Education, Knowledge and Action Research. Basingstoke:

Falmer Press. Return to text

Duffy, T.M. & Jonassen, D.J., eds. (1992) Constructivism and the Technology of Instruction: a Conversation.

Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Return to text

Entwhistle, N.J. (1988) Styles of Learning and Teaching: An Integrated Outline of Educational Psychology. David

Fulton: London.Return to text

Kolb, D. (1984) Experiential Learning. Experience as the Source of Learning and Development. Englewood Cliffs,

New Jersey: Prentice-Hall. Return to text (a)Return to text (b)Return to text (c)McKernan, J. (1991) Curriculum Action Research. London: Kogan Page.Return to textSchon, D. (1983) The Reflective Practitioner: how Professionals Think in Action. New York: Basic Books. Return to

text

Zuber-Skerritt, O. (1982) Action Research in Higher Education. London: Kogan.Return to text

Documents

AN ACTION RESEARCH APPROACH TO CURRICULUM DEVELOPMENT