Is a Course on Action Research a Living Contradiction?

Tom Russell

---

"Doing action research" as a teacher could be described as taking a long hard look at some aspect of your own teaching. In contrast, "taking a course" could be described as taking a long hard look at the world through the eyes of others (the teacher and those whose work is read). This contrast makes me wonder how often teachers experience a course on how to do action research as a "living contradiction" (a phrase I borrow from Jack Whitehead). If the course proceeds with a "traditional" teach er-student relationship based on transfer of information, then the learning experiences of the course itself may send a set of messages that contradict those contained in the procedures for doing action research. And if the learning experiences are consistent with the challenging nature of action research, then those experiences make some individuals quite uncomfortable.

I am relatively new to teaching a course on action research, just completing my second try. The first try seemed to go "famously and effortlessly" for a variety of reasons apparent in hindsight; high group cohesiveness may top the list. This may have made me less sensitive than I needed to be to the reactions of those who signed up for my second try. Although I have not always succeeded, it has long been my personal goal to "walk my talk" by teaching in ways that are consistent with the content ofmy co urse. For example, if we are discussing a paper that suggests a particular approach to teachers' professional development, then I try to teach in ways that also express that approach. This sounds simple enough, on the surface. Where is the sensitivity required? Some people have very definite expectations for the role assumed by any teacher. In contrast, action research usually entails some level of rethinking of the role of teacher, a process that I began so long ago that I have developed a set of "teaching reflexes" that I now take for granted. These might be summarized by the phrase, "giving each member of the class as much rope as they can manage." Years ago, I was urged to desc ribe one aspect of my teaching with "Russell's Rule of Structure": If no one is complaining about lack of structure, then I am providing too much. Along with this go long wait time (an appreciation of silence!), open-ended assignments, and an invitation to the group to suggest new directions, including deviation from the course outline. I also rely heavily on "backtalk"--explicit comments from course members on their learning experiences in the course.

These all strike me as values consistent with action research, where one is directly concerned about the quality of learning experiences and where one must be open to unexpected messages about the impact of one's teaching. Action research is not a simple recipe for patting oneself on the back and carrying on as one has taught for 5, 10, or more years. If action research does not challenge one's assumptions and expectations about the nature of teaching and learning, then I would argue it has failed in some fundamental way. Nevertheless, a teacher has a responsibility to each and every member of a course. When some respond with interest and enthusiasm for the ways in which assumptions about teaching and learning are being challenged and explored, while others respond with disappointment and dismay that existing assumptions about teaching and learning are not being fulfilled, the end result can be chaotic and frustrating.

Perhaps a course on action research requires a warning label on the course outline: WARNING: Action Research may be hazardous to your assumptions and expectations about the roles of teacher and learner.