Abstract
Beginning with a review of the history of action research in the New Zealand setting, this chapter focuses on the challenges facing action researchers in the context of a large, urban secondary school. Its focus is a two-year research project, which aimed at developing a culture of writing across a range of high school curriculum areas. The project involved ten teachers, as members of a Professional Learning Community, in intensive professional development drawing on Writing Project principles and practices, and their subsequent implementation of a range of innovative interventions in selected, case-study classrooms as teacher-researchers. Drawing on a range of data, it examines the potential for school-wide change that starts with a small, highly committed group of staff undertaking and sharing with colleagues the changes in practice.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
References
Alcorn, N. (1986). Action research: A tool for school development. Delta, 37, 33–44.
Andrews, R. (2008). The case for a National Writing Project for teachers. Reading, PA: CfBT Education Trust.
Balogh, R. (2011). “It is difficult to work without it”: Action research at work in countering hegemonic education policies (CARN Bulletin 14). Didsbury, UK: Manchester Metropolitan University/CARN.
Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. New York: W. H. Freeman.
Berger, J., & Baker, R. (2008). Developing new knowledge and practice through teacher-researcher partnerships? Paper presented at the International Congress for School Effectiveness and Improvement (ICSEI), Auckland, January 6–9, 2008. Retrieved from http://www.tlri.org.nz/sites/default/files/pages/developing-new-knowledge.pdf
Bernstein, B. (2000). Pedagogy, symbolic control and identity: Theory, research, critique (Rev. ed.). Lanham, MA: Rowman & Littlefield.
Bevins, S., & Price, G. (2014). Collaboration between academics and teachers: A complex relationship. Educational Action Research, 22(2), 270–284.
Cochran-Smith, M., & Lytle, S. (2009). Chapter 5. Inquiry as stance: Ways forward. In M. Cochran-Smith & S. Lytle (Eds.), Inquiry a stance: Practitioner research for the next generation (pp. 118–165). New York, NY: Teachers College Press.
Codd, J. (1997). Knowledge, qualifications and higher education: A critical view. In M. Olssen & K. Morris Matthews (Eds.), Education policy in New Zealand: The 1990’s and beyond (pp. 130–144). Palmerston North, New Zealand: Dunmore Press.
Dix, S., & Cawkwell, G. (2011). The influence of peer group response: Building a teacher and students’ expertise in the writing classroom. English Teaching: Practice and Critique, 10(4), 41–57.
DuFour, R. (2004). What is a “professional learning community”? Educational Leadership, 61(8), 6–11.
Elley, W. (1996). Curriculum reform: Forwards or backwards. DELTA, 48(1), 11–18.
Esposito, J., & Smith, S. (2006). From reluctant teacher to empowered teacher-researcher: One educator’s journey toward action research. Teacher Education Quarterly, 33(3), 45–60.
Fairclough, N. (1992). Discourse and social change. Cambridge, England: Polity Press.
Gilmore, A. (2007). Review of the teaching and learning research initiative. Report to the TLRI Steering Committee, New Zealand Council for Educational Research. Christchurch, New Zealand: Unit for Studies in Educational Evaluation, College of Education, University of Canterbury.
Gore, J. J., & Gitlin, A. D. (2004). [Re]visioning the academic-teacher divide: Power and knowledge in the educational community. Teachers and Teaching: Theory and Practice, 10(1), 35–58.
Hall, C. (2000). Reliability, validity and manageability. NZ Education Review, 13, 173–192.
Hawthorne, S. (2008). Students’ beliefs about barriers to engagement with writing in secondary school English: A focus group study. Australian Journal of Language and Literacy, 31(1), 30–42.
Hawthorne, S., Locke, T., & Tai, T. (2015). Using response groups in the junior English classroom. English in Aotearoa, 85, 35–49.
Hoogeveen, M., & van Gelderen, A. (2013). What works in writing with peer response? A review of intervention studies with children and adolescents. Educational Psychology Review, 25(4), 473–502.
Ivanič, R. (2004). Discourses of writing and learning to write. Language and Education, 18(3), 220–245.
Kelsey, J. (1997). The New Zealand experiment: A world model for structural adjustment? Auckland: Auckland University Press with Bridget Williams Books.
Kemmis, S., & McTaggart, R. (Eds.). (1988). The action research planner. Geelong, Australia: Deakin University.
Kemmis, S., & McTaggart, R. (2005). Participatory action research: Communicative action and the public sphere. In N. Denzin & Y. Lincoln (Eds.), The Sage handbook of qualitative research (3rd ed., pp. 559–604). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Kincheloe, J., & Mclaren, P. (1994). Rethinking critical theory and qualitative research. In N. Denzin & Y. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research (pp. 138–157). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Lieberman, A., & Wood, D. (2003). Inside the National Writing Project: Connecting network learning and classroom teaching. New York: Teachers College Press.
Locke, T. (2001). Curriculum, assessment and the erosion of professionalism. New Zealand Journal of Educational Studies, 36(1), 5–23.
Locke, T. (2004). Someone else’s game: Constructing the English teaching professional in New Zealand. Teaching and Teacher Education, 20, 17–29.
Locke, T. (2007a). Constructing English in New Zealand: A report on a decade of reform. L1—Educational Studies in Language and Literature, 7(2), 5–33.
Locke, T. (2007b). Resisting qualifications reforms in New Zealand: The English study design as constructive dissent. Rotterdam/Taipei: Sense.
Locke, T. (2008). English in a surveillance regime: Tightening the noose in New Zealand. Changing English: Studies in Culture & Education, 15(3), 293–310.
Locke, T. (2010). Teachers becoming action researchers: Towards a model of induction. L1—Educational Studies in Language and Literature, 10(2), 41–66.
Locke, T. (2013). Assessing student poetry: Balancing the demands of two masters. English Teaching: Practice and Critique, 12(1), 23–45.
Locke, T. (2015a). The impact of intensive writing workshop professional development on a cross-curricular group of secondary teachers. New Zealand Journal of Educational Studies, 50(1), 1–15.
Locke, T. (2015b). Developing writing teachers: Practical ways for teacher-writers to transform their classroom practice. New York: Routledge.
Locke, T., Alcorn, N., & O’Neill, J. (2013). Ethical issues in collaborative action research. Educational Action Research, 21(1), 107–123.
Locke, T., & Kato, H. (2012). Poetry for the broken-hearted: How a marginal year 12 English class was turned on to writing. English in Australia, 47(1), 61–79.
Locke, T., Whitehead, D., & Dix, S. (2013). The impact of “Writing Project” professional development on teachers’ self-efficacy as writers and teachers of writing. English in Australia, 48(2), 55–69.
Martin, B., & Brouwer, W. (1991). The sharing of personal science and the narrative element in science education. Science Education, 75(6), 707–722.
McCallister, C. (2008). “The author’s chair” revisited. Curriculum Inquiry, 38(4), 455–471.
McLaughlin, M., & Talbert, J. (2006). Building school-based teacher learning communities: Professional strategies to improve student achievement. New York: Teachers College Press.
Ministry of Education. (2007). The New Zealand Curriculum. Wellington, New Zealand: Learning Media.
Mockler, N. (2014). When “research ethics” become “everyday ethics”: The intersection of inquiry and practice in practitioner research. Educational Action Research, 22(2), 146–158.
Parr, J. (2010). Supporting the teaching of writing in New Zealand schools: Scoping report to the Ministry of Education, 20 December 2010. Wellington, New Zealand: Ministry of Education/Learning Media.
Pritchard, R., & Honeycutt, R. (2007). Best practices in implementing a process approach to teaching writing. In S. Graham, C. MacArthur, & J. Fitzgerald (Eds.), Best practices in writing instruction (pp. 28–49). New York: Guilford Press.
Pugalee, D. (2001). Using communication to develop students’ mathematical literacy. Mathematics Teaching in the Middle School, 6(5), 296–299.
Robertson, J., Trotman, S., & Galbraith, A. (1997). Action research: A strategy for school and teacher development. Hamilton, New Zealand: Educational Leadership Centre, University of Waikato.
Robinson, V. (2014). Open-to-learning conversations: Background paper. Retrieved from http://www.educationalleaders.govt.nz/Problem-solving/Leadership-dilemmas/Open-to-learning-conversations
Scanlan, P., & Carruthers, A. (1990). Report on the New Zealand Writing Project: An informal evaluation. English in Aotearoa, 11, 14–18.
Seraphin, K. (2014). Where are you from? Writing towards science literacy by connecting culture, person, and place. Journal of Geoscience Education, 62(1), 11–18.
Shulman, L. S. (1986). Those who understand: Knowledge growth in teaching. Educational Researcher, 15(2), 4–14.
Thrupp, M. (2013). National standards for student achievement: Is New Zealand’s idiosyncratic approach any better? Australian Journal of Language and Literacy, 36(2), 99–110.
Timperley, H., Wilson, A., Barrar, H., & Fung, I. (2007). Teacher professional learning and development: Best evidence synthesis iteration (BES). Wellington, New Zealand: Ministry of Education.
Townsend, A. (2013). Action research: The challenges of understanding and changing practice. Maidenhead, England: Open University Press/McGraw-Hill.
Whitehead, D., & Murphy, F. (2012). Teaching causal text connectives in chemistry. NZ Science Teacher, 129, 36–38.
Wiliam, D. (2011). Embedded formative assessment. Bloomington, IN: Solution Tree Press.
Wood, D., & Lieberman, A. (2000). Teachers as authors: The National Writing Project’s approach to professional development. International Journal of Leadership in Education, 3(3), 255–273.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Appendix: Project Timetable
Appendix: Project Timetable
Phase 1 | |
December 2012 | Initial research team roundtable Project members begin to plan a six-day writing workshop for January, 2013 and begin a review of current school structures and processes around the implementation of professional learning (in writing). |
Phase 2 | |
January–March 2013 | Six-day writing workshop (January). Initial baseline data collection. |
Phase 3 | |
April 2013 | Second research team roundtable: Collaborative reflection on selected Year 1 baseline data. Beginning of action research cycle, including collaborative planning of classroom teaching strategies drawing on writing workshop experiences. School-based Writing Workshop-based PL is planned for and scheduled. |
July 2013–November 2013 | Two kinds of intervention will be occurring. 1. A classroom-based intervention where specific practices are investigated in relation to aspired-to, writing-based outcomes for students. 2. School-based, writing-related, professional learning systems/processes are implemented. Initial dissemination at school level of class-based findings. Data collection continues. University-based researcher works closely with Group 1 teacher-researchers. |
Phase 4 | |
December, 2013 December, 2013–February, 2014 | Third research team roundtable: Review all intervention-related data with some preliminary analysis. Planning of 2nd, six-day writing workshop, to take place in January, 2014. Initial dissemination and publication of findings in various settings. Analysis of data related to Phase 3 continues. Modification of PL model around writing is revised. A 2nd, six-day writing workshop takes place for Group 2 teachers. Writing Workshop-based professional learning (PL) programs are evaluated with a view to refinement and modification. Baseline data collected in respect of Group 2. |
Phase 5 | |
March–July 2014 | Fourth research team roundtable: A further action research cycle similar to Phase 3 and learning from it. |
July 2014–October 2014 | Interventions occur in a similar way to Phase 3. |
Phase 6 | |
Nov 2014–December 2014 | Analysis and reporting continue. Continuing dissemination of project findings and conclusions in a range of genres and settings. The “Where to from here?” question is addressed. |
Copyright information
© 2017 The Author(s)
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Locke, T., Hawthorne, S. (2017). Affecting a High School Culture of Writing: Issues and Dilemmas in Participatory Action Research. In: Rowell, L., Bruce, C., Shosh, J., Riel, M. (eds) The Palgrave International Handbook of Action Research. Palgrave Macmillan, New York. https://doi.org/10.1057/978-1-137-40523-4_32
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1057/978-1-137-40523-4_32
Published:
Publisher Name: Palgrave Macmillan, New York
Print ISBN: 978-1-137-44108-9
Online ISBN: 978-1-137-40523-4
eBook Packages: EducationEducation (R0)