Action research for institutional curriculum change

Action research is a burgeoning form of curriculum development in higher education within the western world. While it has been most commonly used by lecturers to improve their own teaching practices it is also a method for course review and development. In the localised context of classroom teaching the approach has been widely acclaimed as a successful one. However, because it is very labour intensive and is therefore, relatively costly, sponsors are understandably beginning to look for its effectiveness on curriculum change at the institutional level.

This paper addresses the question of how classroom action research projects might contribute to such institutional change. Literature on curriculum development and action research is referred to in proposing a suitable curriculum framework and process which might enable the influence of action research projects to be maximised.

The paper should be of interest to lecturers undertaking curriculum change, unit coordinators, academic staff developers and university administrators who are seeking to bring about campus-wide curriculum change in their own universities.

Action research is a widely used form of curriculum development and professional development in Australia and other countries of the western world. Since its emergence within social psychology in the United States in the 1940s it has revived in primary and secondary school education since the 1970s and has also been used extensively , in more recent times, in areas such as business, nursing, social work, occupational therapy and community development.

Now, action research is also an established means of achieving development in higher education (Altreitcher, 1986; Kember and Kelly, 1993; Smith and Lovett, 1994; Zuber-Skerritt, 1992; and Zuber-Skerritt, 1996). In the main action research has been sponsored in higher education to conduct innovations in teaching and curriculum development. Academics have put the lens on their own practices, knowledge and attitudes over a sustained period bringing about substantial and deep rooted change to the way they go about their roles in teaching and learning. This change has been a localised form of change affecting the action researchers and those influenced by their work as well as some other interested colleagues who have learned from the process and findings of the projects.

That this is work has not usually embraced the notion of change on an institutional basis has caused some concern on two levels. First, in this author's observations, the action researchers have been curtailed by being unable to change the conditions shaping their teaching and through a general lack of reflectiveness within their immediate and wider institutional environments. Second, in these days of quality audits, there is a growing concern from sponsors to be able to account for the funds spent in terms of their influence across the institution.

Some cases in question

The academics in both of these groups carried out action research into the curriculum of one of their own cross-cultural classroom contexts. These projects brought about changes to their teaching processes as well as to unit contents and structures. In some cases the projects served as a means of actually developing new units. In general the feedback indicates that students who participated in the classes being reviewed experienced the benefits which ranged from:

1. Increased participation in class and more interaction between cultural groups;
2. Increased relevance to students from a variety of cultures;
3. More responsive teaching - attention to the needs of their particular class;
4. An emphasis on active learning in class and in assessment procedures;
5. Seeing their feedback being put to use, both in the short term and long term;
6. Increased pass rates after intervention where students were identified as being at risk of failure; and,
7. Making specific contributions to the content and processes of future units.

These outcomes indicate healthy growth and influence of a localised kind and they also serve as examples of the University goals and policy being carried out (in this case, in areas such as access and equity, teaching and learning and cross-cultural education). However, they have not, and neither should they have, significantly contributed to institutional change in teaching and learning.

Action research and institutional curriculum change

Given that this ultimate purpose has not yet been achieved in action research projects within higher education, those of us who aspire to it find ourselves looking for suitable approaches. Stuart- Hunt (1995) refers to successful programs in improving the first year experience of university students to advocate that a successful way of achieving institutional change is to, Begin with quality and expand on that program.

The conceptual plan presented below is a starting point for pegging out a structural curriculum framework and processes which can put Stuart-Hunt's notion to the test as a way of making better use of the action research projects in higher education.

The conceptual plan

The educational dimension of the plan incorporates a curriculum framework based on what is known as the process model (Stenhouse, 1987, pp. 84-97). This means that the end goal is achieved through interdependent objectives which emphasise the learning process.[1] Within this framework the learning and practice of a small, quality program is strategically proliferated through other groups within the university in what is known as the proliferating centres model (Schon, 1983). This model works within an underpinning and sometimes implicit set of concepts within the theory about the change process. One central concept is the need to seek and get regular support and legitimation from the University management. The set of concepts to date is as follows:

1. Change is most effective when it attends to the concerns of and is "owned" by those who carry it out and/or are affected by it.
2. Institutional change depends on support from relevant authorities, policy makers and managers.
3. Mass change arises from raising awareness to issues at the "right time" in a way that affirms the, perhaps less explicit, thoughts of the majority. This is commonly called the ah ha effect. (Capra, 1983)
4. Dissemination and publication of evidence of change is needed on a continuous basis to help make that which has been "unfamiliar" to the population of the institution become more familiar.
5. Social/political work is needed to co-ordinate and maximise opportunities for proliferation and integration within the system.
6. Change is affirmed when what has been aimed at is achieved and becomes asked for.

Imagining the plan in action

The evolution of the Curtin University Postgraduate Supervision Action Research Group

This request was made within an academic staff development session within a series entitled Reflective Teaching Practice in Higher Education. That this request was acted on is in part due to my belief in the concept that change is effective when it ... attends to the concerns of and is "owned" by those who carry it out and/or are affected by it.

Next the supervisor who had made the request and I set off on a participatory path of developing a proposal. Our practical knowledge of research supervision in the University told us that this request reflected the interests and concerns of other supervisors. Furthermore, postgraduate supervision had recently been identified as a priority area of teaching development by the University Teaching Learning Group (TLG) which operated under the direction of the Teaching Learning Advisory Committee to the University Academic Board. To this end a major research and development project on postgraduate supervision had recently been undertaken by the TLG in order to raise issues across the University. A supervisors' support group which helped supervisors to explore and develop their supervisory practices in their own localised contexts could profitably supplement the existing project. In these two ways, mentioned above, the project would probably be happening at the right time.

We (the supervisor and myself) began by successfully eliciting support from the researchers (two professors) who were carrying out the major project. From here, for reasons explained above, it was an easy matter to get the support from the TLG who would house the project envisaged. This also secured support for a funding application once the proposal had been developed. Ideas and support were also elicited and received from other key stakeholders and decision making authorities until we had reached the stage where we considered support from relevant authorities, policy makers and managers to be sufficiently strong.

With the preparatory work done the full proposal for funding could now be written and submitted. The proposal was for a pilot project to test out the effectiveness of such an action research group in enhancing knowledge and practice about postgraduate supervision, both at the level of the individual supervisors involved and for those in collaboration with them. The proposal was successful and attention shifted to the next tasks in the conceptual plan.

These tasks were to attract interest and pave the way for future liaison with key stakeholders and authorities on postgraduate supervision and, most importantly, to call for expressions of interest to form a small group of participating lecturers.

The lecturers received modest funding ($2000.00 each to assist with costs) and have recently embarked on their individual action research projects. At this point the overall project has received indications of getting support and co-operation from several groups and looks to continued interaction. The ground work done is the kind referred to in the earlier mentioned concept, Social/political work is needed to co-ordinate and maximise opportunities for proliferation and integration within the system. It is especially necessary in view of the fact that the project is a pilot project with an intention of testing its suitability for greater appropriation in the future.

Many of the concepts which have been applied will warrant continued application in differing forms as the project evolved. Furthermore, other underpinning concepts may need to be introduced to the framework. Notwithstanding these two points, the major task ahead is planning and carrying out the dissemination strategies to build up interest in a way that serves to begin in producing a groundswell as well as to elicit the necessary support and legitimation from the relevant decision making authorities.

On-going issues

One role I currently have in facilitating the pilot project is introducing and suggesting appropriate methods for action research, which is a new paradigm for most lecturers in the group. While such aspects of rigour are not always emphasised in action research[2] they are particularly important in projects such as this where there is a theoretical intention (an intention to contribute to knowledge through the literature) as well as a practical purpose. Notwithstanding this need, it is imagined that the role of the facilitator could change markedly as the conceptual plan for institutional curriculum change was carried out over time. The reasons for this are contemplated below.

First, the need to introduce action research as a theoretical process may become less necessary over time, as the literature concerning theoretical aspects of action research is more widely read and discussed.[3] Another reason is that the social/political work might well be shared amongst the action researchers and their project management groups in the Schools and Divisions/Branches of the University. Whereas the facilitator has initially carried out a role of social/political mediation and planning with the intention of setting the seeds of possibility for institutional curriculum change, this will need to be shared in a collaborative way if the conceptual plan, as presented here, is to be carried out.

Conclusion

References

Capra, F. (1983). The Turning Point: Science and Society and the Rising Culture. Fontana Paperbacks, London.

Carr, W. and Kemmis, S. (1986). Becoming Critical: Educational Knowledge and Action Research. Deakin University Press, Deakin University, Geelong, Victoria, Australia, 1986.

Schon, D. (1983). In Hall, S. and Tuettemann, E. (1986). An Evaluation of the Early Literacy Inservice Course (ELIC). Volume Two: Case studies of the Tutor Training Programme. Western Australian Education Department, Perth, Western Australia.

Habermas, J. (1972). Knowledge and Human Interests. Heinemann, London, 1972.

Kember, D. and Kelly, M. (1993). Action Research in University Teaching. HERSDA Green Guide No. 14.

Kemmis, S. (1983). Reflections on method. In Kemmis, S., Dawkins, D., Brown, L., Cramer, B., and Reilly, T., Transition and Reform in the Victorian Transition Education Program. The Final Report of the Transition Education Case Study Project. Transition Education Advisory Committee, Melbourne, 1983.

Stenhouse, L. (1975). An Introduction to Curriculum Research and Development. Heinemann, London.

Stuart Hunter, Mary (1995). Video link-up from University of South Carolina, USA, a keynote address to the seminar, First Year Experience, Curtin University, Perth, Western Australia.

Zuber-Skerritt, O. (1992). Action Research in Higher Education: Examples and Reflections. Kogan Page, London.

Zuber-Skerritt, O. (Ed) (in press). New Directions in Action Research. Falmer Press, London.

Endnotes

1. This is in constrast to achieving objectives which are independent of each other and which are achieved by separate or unrelated methods which do not necessarily contribute to the quality of the learning process. The latter is known as the objectives model.

2. Such as some community development and social service projects which are concerned mainly with a practical purpose.

3. There is a danger of action research method being considered simply as problem solving method which is in fact less theoretically rigorous. This has implications for the quality of the review and development and its potential contribution to knowledge.