Penny Haworth and Daniel Haddock, College of Education, Massey University, New Zealand

e-mail: P.A.Haworth@massey.ac.nz; D.H.Haddock@massey.ac.nz

In this paper, we will be talking about how teachers, researchers and educational advisors balance their different roles in participatory action research teams. I will begin by examining what happens to role identities in these collaborative teams, and how the perceived power and status in various roles can be balanced, particularly during joint reflection and planning sessions. After this, Dan will focus on some of the practical steps that are necessary in setting up a participatory action research project, and illustrate how the roles that were allocated to team members influenced the ebb and flow of power in the research team.

Working in a collaborative partnership has been likened to weaving together at a loom [OHT 1 quote]:

"The work of collaboration differs from solo work because it is accomplished, not first in one person’s mind, and then in the other’s, but on the loom between them, in the centre of their joint space. … The richness … lies in effectively acknowledging, and where appropriate, resolving differences between the partners" (Donaldson and Sanderson, 1996:44).

To get our loom operating effectively we had to transfer ownership for the study to a particular group of teachers who, we hoped, shared our concerns. We then had to find ways to work collaboratively with them to develop the study in a way that would be useful for all of us. In reflecting on this process, we have come to realise that a critical factor in that transfer of ownership to the teachers in the study, is having an awareness of the roles that each of us holds at the start, and managing how our individual roles change as the research evolves.

Transferring ownership in participatory action research, involves researchers and teachers in both resolving and acknowledging differences. This is not necessarily a straightforward task. If we look at the traditional roles of teachers and researchers, there are normally quite clearly defined boundaries between the tasks of each. In collaborative research, however, the roles of teacher and researcher draw closer together; the delineation between roles becomes blurred and principal roles need redefining. It could be said that, in participatory action research, teachers and educational researchers may feel they are being obliged to wear hats of a similar hue [OHT 2: teachers/researchers swapping hats]. Teachers, while still practitioners, are expected to carry out more formal research, and researchers, while still academics, are expected to become more intimately involved in the classroom processes.

Taking on new roles, like wearing a new hat, does not mean that the person wearing the hat necessarily changes their identity. Although a different role might be dominant at a particular time, the original identity is still present beneath the surface and continues to influence the person’s perceptions and actions. To illustrate this, let’s take a look at the university researchers in this symposium. All of us are involved in teacher education; each has past experiences as a ‘good’ teacher to draw on. As applied researchers, each of us readily see ourselves in the teacher role. The result is [OHT 3: researchers hold more weight in the balance] an unbalanced situation in which researchers perceive themselves overlapping both teacher and researcher roles, while teachers may (at least initially) see themselves in only one role - that of teacher. So, we have a team that all see themselves as teachers - and collaboration is known to be inherently difficult for teachers. Teachers prefer to work alone (Lortie, 1975; O’Neil, 1997).

In reality, teachers may actively avoid working collaboratively because they are fearful of criticism. Hargreaves (1994: 167) notes however that while isolation protects teachers from critical evaluation, "it also shuts out possible sources of praise and support. Isolated teachers get little adult feedback on their value, worth and competence". Therefore, establishing trust is critical in setting up collaborative, or participatory, action research with teachers. It is necessary not only for teachers to trust researchers, but also for researchers to trust teachers. My own personal struggle in trusting teachers was exemplified throughout our project by my early arrival at the school each morning that a class was to be video taped. I would potter around setting up the video equipment, all the while inquiring tentatively what was planned for the lesson, hoping to be able to discretely problem solve and ready to offer ‘helpful’ advice - that was seldom requested. Alan Cox refers to a similar conflict in his project where the researchers often felt that their definition of ‘good’ practice was not being enacted by the teachers.

There was one interesting indication of trust developing with the teachers that Dan and I worked with. As teachers in our study began to relax and feel less threatened, they were seen for the first time on the video tapes. Although we had defined our focus as being on the children as learners, more and more we were seeing teachers teaching these children on the video tapes that we viewed in our reflection sessions.

The tension between researchers as theorists and teachers as practitioners is often cited in the literature as a tension between vision and voice (eg Hargreaves, 1994:251). In the project that Dan and I worked on, the balance was further weighted by the lack of knowledge that teachers have about teaching children from language backgrounds other than English (Kennedy and Dewar, 1997; Freeman and Freeman, 1994; Brumfit, 1990). Therefore Dan and I were more likely to fall into the trap of being regarded as expert, both by ourselves and by the teachers. One story that illustrates our learning in this area relates to the planning of a lesson on transformational geometry for students in year six. We had set the criteria that lessons had to provide cognitive challenge matched to the students’ chronological age; but the tasks also had to be adapted to the level of English proficiency which the children had, and in some cases this was minimal. As you can imagine, planning activities which presented a challenge for a group including both non-English speaking background children and native speakers of English became quite difficult. In the process, Dan and I had the humbling experience of finding that the theoretical ideals we had brought with us were not always easily implemented in practice. Ultimately, this was useful for the research team, as it levelled our role status with teachers [OHT 4: teachers and researchers level]. We were not just there to ask the questions; and when it came to answers, we did not have them all.

A number of factors have been identified in the literature as useful in equalising or balancing roles in collaborative endeavours. Firstly, meeting in a "neutral spot" is recommended (Donaldson and Sanderson, 1996). In the project that Dan and I worked on the two teachers in the team were very different. [OHT 5: teachers unbalanced]. One was an older male teacher with a position of responsibility in the school, the other was a female first year teacher. Meeting in a small room usually used for English language support work meant that neither teacher was in their "own" territory. "Turn-taking" is also suggested (Donaldson and Sanderson, 1996:45). We employed this strategy, but learnt to give the least vocal junior teacher the first turn to ensure that she had a fair share of the time available. We also tried to ensure that the teachers would take on a supportive role for each other. For instance, we asked the teacher whose video tape was not featuring at the time to record points on the white board for us. This removed the teacher whose class was on video tape from the direct scrutiny of their professional peer.

Recently, there has been an increasing emphasis on the need for "social validity" in research (Welch, Brownell and Sheridan, 1999:40). We found that members of the research team needed not only clearly defined roles, but also these roles needed to be valid and allow each person to work to their own strengths. In our project, Dan and I were clearly focused on finding interesting things to include in our research report at the end of the study; the teachers, on the other hand, were much more focused on the immediate teaching/learning situation. Their accountability was in teaching more effectively in the next lesson - more so perhaps because it would be in front of a video camera and viewed by others in the team later that day. This was quite unlike Alan Cox’s study in which the video tapes were not viewed until after the study was completed.

In Alan Cox’s study, allocating roles became a problem. Alan tells the story of the university researchers in his project being so mindful of retaining equal partnership with teachers in their study that differentiated roles were never allocated. It is interesting to speculate whether this may have contributed to the stronger patterns of interaction that emerged in this study with the children who were participants in the research. Alan will talk more about this in the next paper.

In contrast, Brian Cole’s study on developing assessment portfolios, clearly established valid roles. Each teacher researcher went away to try out their ideas, coming back later on to reflect with Brian on how things were going, and to problem solve the implementation of their next move. In these meetings, Brian would ask questions such as : "How did it go?"; "What were you thinking …?"; "What do you think you might do next?". This technique effectively shifted the power into the teacher’s arena. The task of the researcher was to facilitate and stimulate the teacher to find his/her own creative solutions.

It is interesting that both Brian Coles’s and our research team found that teachers needed time to individually reflect on and creatively plan for the next lesson or the next development. This often took place away from the collaborative reflection sessions. Hargreaves (1994:180) supports the need for this in differentiating between solitude as a retreat to reflect, and isolation as a prison or a refuge, concluding that it is solitude that stimulates creativity and imagination. Time spent at the collective "loom" is valuable, but there is also a need for teachers to have solitary time working through their own personal teaching solutions. It is in this way that we achieve creative solutions over which we have independent ownership . Schon (in Hargreaves, 1994:178) notes that the heart of professional action is the "power to make independent judgement, to exercise personal discretion, initiative and creativity". Through allowing each person in the research team to hold a valid role and to have time alone to be creative in that role, we give teachers space to not only to contribute to our learning in the participatory action research process, but also to grow professionally as a result of their participation.

At this point I want to summarise by suggesting one way of balancing roles in participatory action research [OHT 6: allocating roles]. You may want to challenge this, or add other ideas in the discussion time at the end.

As Penny noted at the start, I will explore some of the issues about the ebb and flow of responsibilities during the organisation of collaborative action research projects. This discussion will centre on three points:

• Ignition
• Co-Drivers
• The Checkered Flag and Beyond

Collaborative Action Research is seen as involving teachers in generating ideas about classroom practice and drawing them into the process. It presents an alternative to externally imposed professional development activities (Hamilton, 1997). If the problem to be investigated is not from an external source such as a university researcher, who is responsible for kick starting the process of action research? If teachers are to benefit directly from this process, how important is it that they generate the original idea?

In our project, we knew from teacher comments during adviser contacts and professional TESOL meetings that teachers were struggling with the assessment practices demanded by a Ministry of Education ESOL Funding programme. We decided that the issues involved needed more exploration and approached a school principal to see if teachers would be interested in pursuing this issue. Allan Cox, whose paper is to follow, tells us that his situation was similar. The researchers had an idea they wished to explore, "Good Talk in the Classroom" and the school was asked if they wanted to participate. Of our three projects, perhaps Brian’s came closest to a teacher- led germination. There was strong motive to explore how well portfolios would work in tracking student’s progress effectively in their school. However, even in this case, Brian was working with the portfolio idea as part of a contract. The products of the action research in each case were not decided and did grow out of the collaborative process between teachers and researchers but I wonder how often teachers start the vehicle of action research. Do researchers still know what is best for teachers to explore? It is obvious that in many action research projects, teachers do "start the ball rolling". In terms of project ownership, it may be essential that the spark comes from the teachers.

In an ideal world, perhaps teachers would be given time to reflect on their practice, generate an area of practice to explore and be provided the time and funding to carry out the study. Certainly, School Self-Reviews and Teacher-Appraisal cycles lead to professional development ideas based on identified needs. I received a phone call from a deputy principal asking that I meet with a teacher who had requested assistance from their appraisal in involving NESB students more effectively in classroom activities. The teacher had also expressed the desire to develop a more effective ESOL programme that could be shared with other teachers. Concerns such as these lead schools to contact advisers, consultants, etc. in order to formulate an appropriate response. In some cases, an action research project may be the most suitable solution or the best –fit method to examine the issues concerned.

In all our projects, the teachers became enthusiastic supporters of the exploration process but would the outcome of the project have been more relevant to their everyday practice if they had approached the researchers for specific assistance rather than the other way around? If we truly want to establish teachers as researchers then I think there are still some major changes to be made in the way schools are managed in order for them to consider the possibility of action research as a valuable addition to professional development practices.

If action research could form part of academic coursework, and then this incentive may encourage teachers and schools to ignite the collaborative action research projects themselves and invite researchers in to help them with this.

According to Poskitt, (1995), teachers need to keep control of the process and the information in action research and not allow outsiders, e.g. other teachers or university researchers, to have control. In our experiences, perhaps the roles are not as strictly defined as this. Collaborative Action Research by its very nature entails a degree of role fluidity (Hamilton, 1997). The ebb and flow of responsibilities are often determined by the particular stage in the cycle and the various outside commitments of the participants. There is an obvious recognition of who does what best in teamwork situations although we may have to guard against this in order for true role blurring or shifting to take place.

Once the project is under way, the course has to be clearly laid out. Given the fact that conducting action research creates additional work for teachers (Bailey, 1999) the parameters of the project have to be discussed and agreed to. The planning, acting, observing, reflecting and re-planning cycle takes careful navigation so that all participants are actively involved, in control of the process and able to attend all the required sessions.

In our project, twelve meetings were held as part of this cycle. This consistent contact and support is essential for navigating the cycle successfully. A recognition of teacher’s busy schedules meant that the teachers made all decisions about time, duration, and location of these meetings. Teachers were given time out of class for only one afternoon during the entire study to discuss the final report. All other meetings were held after school hours. Penny and I were lucky in that all parties were able to attend each meeting which is crucial particularly in the reflecting and re-planning phases of the cycle. However as Allan will discuss later "a lovely plan on paper wasn’t exactly what will happen in reality". On more than one occasion, some of the teachers in his project couldn’t be there for the recapitulation meetings or were called away during the meetings to deal with other issues. In all our projects, teachers were committed to the study throughout but on-going support from senior management teams is also essential to realise the full potential of the study and to encourage teachers to participate fully.

The teachers in our study developed the focus lessons that were part of the cycle from their current curricular and timetable frameworks. Rather than impose a lesson plan in order to meet the researcher’s needs, these sessions naturally evolved from the class programme. It is important to take your foot off the gas and allow your co-driver to plot the direction.

Penny and I hoped that during the reflecting and re-planning sessions that teachers would generate the next phase of the action plan based on analysing the video data. We only suggested strategies and activities when asked and only after the teachers had stated a concern as result of viewing the data. For example, "Pairing of native speaking (NS) and non-native speaking (NNS) students did not generate effective directions from one student to another. What if we changed the pairings from NNS/NNS to NS/NNS?" Or, "The Non-English Speaking Background students are really struggling to produce the language required to enable their partner to complete the co-operative problem solving activity, what can be done to improve the situation in the next lesson?"

It was important to note that until asked by teachers, the researchers did not volunteer suggestions. This can be a difficult situation for a person used to providing educational advice and direction to teachers but was an example of encouraging the teachers to lead certain sections of the process.

As researchers it was vital to maintain our facilitation role and to constantly devolve ownership to the teachers. This devolution may not have occurred right at the start but it was important that it was stitched into the cycle as soon as possible.

It does seem from these studies, that at particular times in the project, teachers and researchers will do what they do best, that is teach and research. A middle ground is frequently reached where the roles do become blurred. However, that generates increased understanding between the co-researchers. For example, we certainly understand the teacher’s situation more clearly now. Given the positive results of the study and the subsequent use of those points by the school, action research can obviously be seen as an "empowering process for teachers" which will give them the chance to investigate ways of improving their classroom practice (Bailey, 1999).

Once the study has been completed, the issue of dissemination of the findings has to be decided. How do we let others know about our results? Who will write the report? In a recent study, teachers were given three hours paid release time to write up the findings of their project (Hamilton, 1997). The reality for our projects was quite different.

When Brian suggested to his teacher-researchers that the materials they had generated on portfolios would be useful to other teachers throughout the country, they were quite prepared to provide the materials but wanted Brian to write up the results.

After completion of our project, Penny and I sent a first draft of the report to the teachers, but perhaps always assumed that we would write the project. This was partly in recognition of the time pressures on teachers. However, in the final meeting teachers discussed the report that we had written and the teachers’ comments and changes were incorporated in the final draft. In hindsight, it would have been worthwhile including some segments written by the teachers as part of the report. We have continued to request teacher approval for any presentation of the report and we do know that other teachers have included some of the recommendations suggested, or have had their practices reaffirmed as a result of our study. The dissemination of findings is an area that needs to be looked at more carefully when preparing the parameters of the study so that the collaborative nature of the study continues from start to finish.

Despite the pitfalls discussed, the Participatory Action Research approach was seen as critical in stimulating change in classroom practices in our studies. For example, we found that the English language taught must be the language that students need to participate in classroom activities (Haworth and Haddock, 1999). The teachers who participated in our study responded positively to the opportunity to spend time away from the ongoing demands of the classroom to carry out intensive observation and look at their NESB student with new eyes. Their observations and reflections were used to inform and adjust the teaching focus in many effective ways." (Haworth and Haddock, 1999). It is vital that teachers and researchers continue to work alongside each other to improve classroom practices, so the skills to do this need practising, refining and sharing with others. That’s why we’re here at this symposium.