By Joseph C. Senese

 

A small but significant group of teachers is helping to effect and promote change at Highland Park High School in Highland Park, Illinois. They are participating in a professional development program in which teams of teachers conduct collaborative action research to improve classroom practices. As the Action Research Laboratory embarks on its third year, the evidence suggests that the action research of the participating teachers is inaugurating and influencing change efforts at the high school.

In order to introduce and sustain changes, Schmoker (1997) states that schools must incorporate three elements into their routines: teacher collaboration, clearly articulated goals for student performance, and data collection and analysis on which to base future directions. Professional education organizations and educational researchers and theorists have long recommended decreasing the isolation inherent in the traditional model of teaching while increasing brainpower applied to each teacher’s challenges. (NSDC, 1995). These elements are the foundation of collaborative action research (Sagor, 1993) and the ARL.

Each spring, I issue a call for participation in the ARL to the entire faculty. The program attracts teachers who are willing and eager to experiment with instructional practices. After an interview, participants are placed on a team of three teachers (each from a different discipline) based on a common area of interest and an openness to collaborating with others. Although I had to recruit three teachers to take part the first year, by the third year only 1 of 12 teachers was solicited.

As a member of an ARL team, each teacher is required to help research and an innovative educational practice in at least one regularly assigned, standard level class. Each team chooses an area based on its own interests. Often the research begins with a shared frustration about classroom practices. The first ARL team began studying the effects of project-based learning on student achievement; since then, they have refined their focus to developing more effective ways to assess projects. The second ARL team wanted to devise methods to emphasize learning by de-emphasizing grades. Throughout the 1996-97 school year, team members did not assign a letter or number grade to any student work including quizzes and tests. Instead they based quarter and semester grades on new assessment rubrics devised together by teachers and students, which included portfolio assessment and frequent teacher-student conferences.

The design of the ARL continues to evolve depending on the participants and their needs. However, these components are essential:

Collaborative sessions. Each ARL team meets for a full day once a month in order to plan activities and research. At first, we find that teachers are skeptical about taking an entire day to talk about their work. But after just one session, they find that they relish this rare opportunity to delve into educational topics with their peers.

Balance between content expertise and experimentation. Because the teachers on a team must come from different disciplines, only one teacher per team is the content expert in any given discipline. This means team members are often forced to think outside of their subject area. Cross-pollination occurs frequently as the discipline specialists exchange ideas about the learning process and grow in their own understanding of how to teach rather than bogging down in discussions about what to teach.

Frequent consultations with a facilitator. During the monthly sessions, as the facilitator of the ARL, I try to create a learning environment for the teams, one in which they are comfortable and encouraged to ask questions that are truly meaningful to them, to take risks, to dream of the ideal, to reflect, and to posit solutions. I provide an agenda, articles for discussion, and a structure in which they can pursue their own work, but during the meetings, I mostly listen and insert carefully placed questions. The teachers are truly in charge of their own learning -- a concept that causes some consternation for each team when it is first formed.

I also act as a resource person for each team, applying for funding, cutting through red tape, and suggesting workshops and conferences. It’s my job to make teams feel that they have an administrative advocate for their work.

Classroom observations of other ARL teachers. Team members are required to conduct informal observation of each other's classes. This has helped ARL teachers develop an understanding of what teachers of other subjects face every day, and what students encounter as they move from class to class.

Research. This takes on a dual meaning for the ARL teachers. First, in order to be sure that their teaching is based on the best professional practices, they need the latest information from the experts in the field of education. Shared readings, membership in the Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development, a subscription to Educational Leadership, and attendance at conferences provide many opportunities for discovering and exchanging this information as they create their own understandings.

Second, each ARL team is conducting its own collaborative action research, which requires them to collect and analyze data from their own classrooms. Teachers experiment with classroom instruction and assessment practices. They have, for example, designed rubrics to assess student progress. They have employed adult assessors other than the teacher (for example, other teachers, paraprofessionals, administrators) to critique student work. They have incorporated new opportunities for students to assess their own work and have taught students to assess each other's work. They have greatly increased communication, both with parents (at Open House and through letters), and also with students, holding frequent student conferences and setting learning goals that included processes and skills as well as content.

ARL teams members use both formal and informal systems to assess student understanding and the effectiveness of their own teaching practices. As part of their research, for example, ARL teachers have surveyed students in their classes, compared grade distributions in their classes to department averages, analyzed the results of phone interviews with 134 parents of students whose children had been enrolled in their classes, and conducted class discussions and reflections.

Coordinated conference/workshop/visitation attendance. The ARL supports and sustains teacher research over several years. Therefore, shared experiences at workshops and conferences have extended value. These common experiences, along with periodic readings of the latest thinking and research in education, inform professional discussion, reflection, and further study. They provide a common language and understanding of the theoretical and research bases on which the teams' action research rests.

Time to develop and carry out action research. The school district has been generous in providing substitutes for ARL teams on days that they meet. In addition, state funding has provided teachers with a partial release from building supervision duty, by making it possible to hire part-time teachers to take on this extra responsibility. This gives ARL teachers a class period each day to devote to their individual and team action research. We have applied for additional sources (private grants, research awards) to help fund our work.

Structures in which to share their progress with others. Reaching out to other faculty members across disciplines is the key to creating that critical mass of teachers to effect educational change at the school level (Wheatley, 1992). When they agree to participate in the ARL, teachers make a commitment to share with others what they are learning from their action research. ARL teachers are beginning to spread the word about the results of their own research and about the benefits of participating in action research. They have made presentations to faculty members and to the school board, had informal discussions with colleagues who act as critical friends, and have written articles for publication.

Information and data from the first two years of the ARL program have been encouraging. The ARL continues to expand. Each of the teachers from Team #1 agreed to participate for a second, and then a third, year. Not only did the members of Team #2 eagerly commit to a second year of the ARL; two of them agreed to co-facilitate a new team that has begun to study the best ways to create a community of learners in the classroom. Still another team has begun to investigate ways to keep senior – whose minds often wander from their studies as their high school careers draw to a close -- engaged for the entire year.

Teachers have thrived in their collaborative teams. Typical of the remarks made by participants is this one by Lauren, a social studies teacher: "By far, the most rewarding part of working on a team was the opportunity to learn and grow with a small group of teachers. By working with these colleagues on a consistent basis throughout the year, I was able to explore new ideas and take risks in the classroom with a type of "safety-net" in place."

Besides working with their team members, ARL teachers have initiated relationships with teachers who are not in the ARL. For example, Robin, a math teacher, worked closely with an applied arts teacher in order to create a real-world experience for geometry students who were applying geometric principles to a study of Chicago architecture. Christine, a science teacher, involved several department members as outside assessors of students. Some of these teachers, in turn, used the model to bring outside assessors into their own science classes.

Because of their action research, these teachers have discovered the benefits of involvement, freedom, and autonomy. John, a health teacher stated: "A revelation that I experienced during this school year was that de-emphasizing grades in the classroom had a profound effect on me as a teacher. The sense of freedom was overwhelming. I no longer had to spend long hours poring over assignments and tests and debating with myself if this was worth 7 out of 10 points or 8 out of 10 points. . . . I no longer felt like I was the enemy, or the person students felt they had to please, for that matter, but rather a partner in arriving at a fair assessment of the subject matter."

It is too early to say definitively how the Action Research Laboratory has improved student learning, but the evidence suggests that students have benefited from being in ARL teachers’ classes. Surveys conducted during the spring of 1997 revealed that 80% of the students enjoyed how the courses were taught, 71% said they would seek out the ARL teacher for another course, and 76% recommended that the teachers continue using these instructional methods because they helped students to learn better.

The parent response was equally encouraging. In the course of 134 phone interviews, 79 families stated that they were aware that the teacher was experimenting with instruction and assessment, and more than 85% of the 79 families recommended that the teachers continue these practices.

The ARL also have proven to be a force for change within the school. The ARL was pivotal in the decision to organize the entire faculty into learning teams that, for all practical purposes, are loosely structured collaborative action research teams. Many teachers use practices tested by ARL teachers, such as rubric formation, student self-assessment, and de-emphasizing grades. ARL teachers have become resources for other teachers within the school. They have been recognized by and have made presentations to the Board of Education. In addition to sharing their work within the district, ARL teachers individually and as teams have applied for awards and opportunities to present their work at conferences, and currently are revising their reports for possible publication.

First and foremost, as the facilitator of the ARL, I have learned to trust the people. Teachers are learners who thrive in a rich, interactive environment that reflects the complexities of their work. When the conditions for growth match teachers' needs, they cannot help but learn and grow. They are willing to initiate changes when they feel supported.

Second, I have learned to trust the process. Action research makes sense. It can provide information to support what works best in the classroom. Once teachers have learned the process, it becomes a natural and necessary part of what they do all the time.

Third, I have learned that staff development is organic. It needs to be grounded in the real lives of teachers. It needs to be based on best practices. But it also needs to be flexible and open to evolving. No two teams of the ARL work exactly the same way, yet every team has been effective in promoting student, teacher, and organizational growth.

National Staff Development Council (1995). National Staff Development Council's standards for staff development, high school level edition. Oxford, OH: Author.

Sagor, R. (1993). How to conduct collaborative action research. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.

Schmoker, M. (1996). Results: the key to continuous school improvement. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.

Wheatley, M. J. (1992). Leadership and the new science. San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler Publishers, Inc.