Drive or Be Driven? Jeffrey Glanz’s Action Research

I’ve got a good friend who I teach with, and we also carpool together so we end up spending a lot of time together. I really like Derrick on many levels, but in the entire five years we’ve worked and driven together, I have yet to go a single day when I don’t hear the following on the long ride home from school.

“I’m so frustrated, it’s like the kids in my class don’t want to learn. Every week it’s the same issues, same fooling around, same kids not handing in work, same headaches! I’d change things, but at the end of the day I’m too frazzled to think. It drives me mad!”

I’m sure this sort of talk would get Jeffrey Glanz’s blood boiling too; a teacher who wants things to be better, but they feel too overwhelmed to make changes in their classroom, and are unsure of what to change anyways. In his book, Action Research: An Educational Leader’s Guide to School Improvement, Glanz attempts to reclaim the notion of ‘research’ from the stereotypes of white lab coats and mad scientists for the purpose of rescuing frustrated teachers like Derrick. Glanz passionately argues for dedicated educators to take up the tool of research in order to make informed, objective decisions in their often-overwhelming field of work.

Glanz is quick and frank to dispel what he sees as the three most common misconceptions about research: that research is only for high-level academics, that research often lacks a real-world applications, and that research is too labor intensive. The process he lays out takes the name ‘action research’ and to me seems tailor-made for educators wishing to make effective changes. The cyclical process may have been criticized in the past by some as “soft science”, however I think action research borrows the essential method from (serious) science while allowing the research practitioner avoid the pitfalls of cold, clinical trials. I really think this is what makes Glanz’s theory and practice so popular with educational leaders; while the structure is scientific, the data collection need not be overly complex.

Glanz does make a clear distinction between two types of action research. A qualitative branch, based upon data of a more anecdotal or observations nature, and a quantitative branch, based upon more empirical, mathematically derived evidence. The two main branches layout a paradigm that identifies a variety of methodologies all united by the principles of a scientific evaluative process. The five-step process seems to me, simply a logical problem solving method with a strong emphasis upon reflection: Select a focus, collect data, analyze and interpret data, take action, and reflect: modify or continue.

While thankfully I do often see teachers (like Derrick) looking for new methods that will improve their classes or teaching, it is often without an objective consideration for the complex variables that mingle within their classrooms. This is probably why I find the action research method most promising; an issue is chosen by the educator to be the focus, but also observed and evaluated by them before a change is made, and reflected upon. The research practitioner is the one behind the wheel and instead of getting frazzled day after day, they move forward through the process and become a proactive driver.