|
| [ HERDSA ]
[ Proceedings Contents ] |
A method for enhancing the quality of teaching and learning is through encouraging academics to engage in action research projects into some aspect of their teaching which is of interest or problematic for them. Action research is promoted as a means for committed teachers to bridge the gap between their theories and practice. However, groups of initiated teachers, fresh to such ideas and methods, may need help to get their projects started and advice on how to proceed afterwards. 'Critical friends' are people recommended by Stenhouse (1975) to take up this proactive role through the building and maintenance of a partner relationship with the academics throughout their projects. This case study discusses the role of the critical friend performed by the co-ordinating team of the Action Learning Project in supporting educational action research projects in Hong Kong. Important facets of such a role include the: rapport builder, coffee maker, mirror, teaching consultant, evaluation advisor, research advisor, resource provider, match maker and deadline enforcer.
There has been some discussion of the role of the critical friend from both a theoretical and a practical perspective with respect to school-based curriculum development work. The literature, though, is still more abundant with discussions of the dilemmas than with guidelines on how to perform the role.
In 1994 a grant was obtained from the University Grants Committee of Hong Kong for a Project which is known as the 'Action Learning Project'. The Project aims to encourage and support academics in all seven universities in Hong Kong to participate in action research projects concerned with aspects of their own teaching.
The Action Learning Project currently supports fifty projects which fit within the overall Project theme. Each project is an action research project by a group of academic staff. Each project has its own focus which is consistent with the overall project goal of enhancing the quality of student learning by improving the quality of teaching.
Groups in each of the universities were invited to submit proposals for funding from an Action Learning Project Fund. The Project Coordinator was available to assist teams in forming proposals. Funds awarded are used for purposes such as:
The sixth Associate Coordinator runs a service for advising on and analysing quantitative data, which is described below. In addition she assists the Coordinator with the organisation of the overall Project.
We usually have an initial meeting with each project team and negotiate the level and type of involvement of the coordinating team. Nevertheless, the project teams are not required to meet with, let alone use the available support of, the Coordinating group. Those who feel confident about conducting their own projects were free to proceed on their own. All but three or four groups, though, did wish to have an initial meeting and most chose to maintain at least some relationship thereafter.
The relationship of the Coordinating group with the project teams varies considerably from project to project. Defining the role has been an evolving process. There are indeed many facets of the role of the critical friend in supporting the action research projects. In this paper we will present the various aspects of the role performed by our Coordinating team.
Given the severe restrictions on the length of papers, we only discuss selected facets of the role here and constrain our description to a fairly factual account. At our conference presentation we hope to flesh out the bare bones with more personal insights.
Three of the six Associate Coordinators were not appointed until after the teams started their projects, two by as much as four months. The intention of having the liaison Associate Coordinator present at the initial meeting was not always met. Either the Coordinator was alone, one of the others filled in, or the meeting was delayed until the projects had progressed. This situation does seem to have had an impact on the rapport building process with some of the teams.
The first meetings also served as a warm up visit where we could communicate our interest in the team's work. It was at the same time a splendid face-to-face opportunity for both parties to observe and understand each other. We could clarify what the team needed while the teams were able to get a better idea of what we could offer. In this way we could mutually accommodate both our expectation and working styles for the success of our co-operation in the later stages.
In the coffee meetings, team members can talk about their ideas and reflect upon their actions freshly in a casual manner. In this way we will be well informed about the progress of their projects. Since the time spent is perceived as 'talking over a cup of coffee', the project teams become more ready to talk. We are able to discuss possible issues, seek possible solutions and remedies to particular problems, in a more comfortable manner. This is also a good way to start our working relationship as partners.
More than once, teams were witnessed having trouble in reaching an agreement on the meaning and implications of the data. The situation was worsened when some of the members tended to focus on the students' negative comment or the department's unfriendly environment and became rather upset. The atmosphere was rather tense.
Such an uncomfortable atmosphere could be relaxed if the co-ordinator involved could step in and resolve the conflict. First, for example, the research assistant responsible for interviewing the students and reporting their feedback could be invited to participate in the discussion which helped clarify the students' responses, gave a more balanced picture and thus enabled the team to gain more insight into the strengths and weaknesses of their teaching programmes.
Second, the team could be reminded that lessons learnt from what appeared to be failed work could be as valuable as those gained from what turned out successfully. It would be extremely helpful if such potential problems and unforeseen hazards could be disseminated to others interested in similar ideas and methods. Moreover, it was only the first cycle and the student should be given more exposure and feedback before they could fully benefit from an innovation. As to the department, it was the team's responsibility to demonstrate the effectiveness of their initiatives, ally with sympathetic colleagues and gradually gain the confidence and involvement of others.
Another way we enhance teaching is by helping the project teams to make use of their research findings to inform their next step of teaching. Some teachers may not be able to make full use of the data collected in the first cycle of their research to aid their planning of the next cycle. We would review the data together and help them identify issues to attend to. Such exercise often proves fruitful and improves the link between research and teaching.
'What do you want to prove?' turned out to be a good trigger question posed to the teams which helped clarify what were expected to achieve through the team's actions. Such exercises often resulted in certain mutually agreed assessable goals which provided clear direction for evaluating the learning outcome. Attention was then drawn to some important factors when planning evaluation. These included the strategy options, skills and expertise involved, availability of project assistant and timing of the course etc.. Finally, working in partnership with the teams, an action plan could be drawn up with the evaluation methods scheduled to be implemented in the next stage of the research cycle.
However, advice alone was sometimes not enough. There was a growing demand for some form of training programme where the project teams and their research assistants could gain practical knowledge and experience on how to carry out their evaluation scheme. To meet this need, evaluation workshops were run where we could demonstrate skills involved in designing and conducting particular evaluation methods, offer practice to the participants and provide feedback related to particular techniques.
We provide a central service for processing and analysing quantitative evaluation data and providing advice on the interpretation of results. However, these depend on the needs of project teams and they vary from project to project. Most teams use standard optical mark reader forms we provide, because of their reliability and efficiency. On return, these forms are fed through the Optical Mark Reader (OMR). It only takes one day to get the data. The resulting data file is analysed with SPSS to give standard statistical output or specific tests requested by the teams. Advice on the interpretation of results is provided if necessary. Sometimes we meet again if the teams want additional assistance or further refinement in the analysis. Often it is necessary to examine the data in conjunction with the qualitative analysis.
The topic which took up the most time, overall, in the initial meetings was developing a research design for projects. This was commonly expressed as a need to find some form of proof that the initiative had been successful. More exploratory approaches, though, were often discovered to be necessary. As the teams were from most major disciplines, many participants faced the need for different paradigms or methods to those traditionally used in their discipline. It was perhaps surprising how ready many of the participants were to attempt qualitative research or to abandon experiment/control designs in favour of more naturalistic approaches. Some participants from the newer universities had limited research experience so the issue was more that of developing a paradigm than shifting.
There is also need for on-going help with research methods. Much of this has been provided by the Associate Coordinators as they interact with their assigned teams. As the amount of experience in educational research varies from team to team, the extent to which they need our support varies accordingly.
Like a resource centre, we keep a pool of general equipment items such as tape recorders and transcribers which can be made available to project teams on request. On top of that, we supply standard optical mark reader forms for teams which use questionnaires to collect data.
Another way we bring the teams together is by developing interest groups. Six interest group meetings have been held which are focused around different themes: English language teaching, multi-media, problem-based learning, reflective practice, active learning, and assessment. The aim of the meetings is for academics with similar interests to share their ideas, problems, solutions and experiences. Through these meetings, we hope to develop links between related project teams so as to encourage the sharing of findings and the cross-fertilisation of ideas. For longer term purposes, we are also considering the development of electronic mailing lists and electronic bulletin boards for interest groups.
Apart from bringing teams into contact with others with similar interests, we have also tried spotting appropriate consultants or research assistants for project teams on their request. Such match-making, however, is not easy as it depends largely on the availability of such persons which is often beyond our control.
In spite of a conscious efforts to reduce bureaucracy and build a rapport with teams, there is still a need at times to act as policeman and act to enforce deadlines. The overall project is accountable and does have to deliver. Furthermore we are committed to disseminating outcomes. You cannot disseminate what you do not have!
We feel that we have all learnt about and developed into the role and would be better equipped to perform it if the Project obtains another grant to support further projects. Hopefully passing on what we have discovered about the role will be of value to other existing or potential critical friends.
In this paper we have described various facets of our role as critical friends in support of educational action research projects. Those facilitating action research in other contexts may find that some facets are not applicable to their situation. Nevertheless, consideration of the potential benefits from adopting such a facet should at least be examined. Similarly, in other contexts and other levels and types of education, the particular strategies or tactics we have adopted may not be the most successful. But again we feel that our experiences should at least provide some insights in devising alternative approaches.
Kember, D. and Gow, L. (1992). Action research as a form of staff development in higher education. Higher Education, 23(3), 297-310.
Kember, D. and Kelly, M. (1993). Improving teaching through action research. NSW: HERDSA Green Guide No. 14.
Kember, D. and McKay, J. (in press). Action research into the quality of student learning: A paradigm for faculty development. Journal of Higher Education.
Stenhouse, L. (1975). An introduction to curriculum research and development. London: Heinemann Educational.
Weeks, P. and Scott, D. (Eds.) (1992). Exploring tertiary teaching: Papers from the TRAC (teaching, reflection and collaboration) project. Armidale: University of New England.
Zuber-Skerrit, O. (1992. Action research in higher education: Examples and reflections. London: Kogan Page.
| Authors: David Kember, Tak-shing Ha, Bick-har Lam, April Lee, Sandra Ng, Louisa Yan and Jessie C.K. Yum, Action Learning Project, c/o Educational Development Unit, Hong Kong Polytechnic University, Hong Kong
Please cite as: Kember, D., Ha, T., Lam, B., Lee, A., Ng, S., Yan, Y. and Yum, J. C. K. (1996). The role of the critical friend in supporting educational action research projects. Different Approaches: Theory and Practice in Higher Education. Proceedings HERDSA Conference 1996. Perth, Western Australia, 8-12 July. http://www.herdsa.org.au/confs/1996/kember.html |