Search results

An earlier article in EJA (Piggot-Irvine 2008) reported on the background, methodology and overall results for an evaluation study of a special education teacher professional development project that involved action research (AR) or action learning (AL). The 'Success Case study' component that constituted the third phase of the evaluation is reported here. The Success Case studies confirmed the most significant outcome of the previous survey (Phase 1) and focus group (Phase 2), that is, an overwhelming willingness of staff and supporters to see students with special education needs excel. Additional distinctive elements emerged that were common to all Success Case schools and the most significant included that: projects were at a small-scale, manageable, level; the classic stages of AR and AL were followed, even though schools may not have been aware of these stages; data/evidence was used to examine both the current situation and outcomes; and 'best practice' and/or a relevant literature underpinned this examination.

This article presents a summary review of the design and results of an independently conducted evaluation of a national New Zealand (NZ) Ministry of Education funded contract for professional development of staff of students with special education needs in 49 schools.The evaluation was conducted as a mixed method design (Johnson & Onwuegbuzie 2004) in the following three phases: a broad questionnaire issued to all participants associated with the development; eight focus groups with a sample of participants; and success case studies (Brinkerhoff, 2003) with four schools.The most significant overall finding was that regardless of the approach to development engaged in (either action research, AR, or action learning, AL), there was an outstanding recurring characteristic of staff and supporters wanting to see the students excel. Other key participant self-report impacts from the small-scale projects on adaptation of the curriculum fell under the headings of improved social interaction and academic achievement for students, changes in values and attitudes (for students and teachers), and changes in teaching practice. Participants referred to the importance of school context factors (inclusive planning, management support) and internal and external experts as enablers towards the effectiveness of development. Barriers to effectiveness were noted as associated with initial national contract administration, the number of development initiatives involved in and lack of alignment between these varied initiatives. Maintaining and sustaining the effective impact of projects was seen as dependent on: ongoing commitment and follow-through by school management, governors and program teachers; having ongoing funding and support (internal and external); and bringing other staff on board.The Phase Three success case evaluation revealed an important element that distinguished projects perceived to be highly successful by both the participants and Ministry of Education personnel. In this small proportion of projects the participant action researchers/learners utilised 'informed' decision-making. Although many participants in Phases One and Two justified their limited use of informed decision-making by noting that it was either too early to validate project outcome changes, or it was difficult to show causal effect (changes could be attributed to the development program), a hallmark of the four success cases was the use of strong data in the reconnaissance and evaluation phases of the AR and AL and improvement initiatives that were informed by both this data and relevant previous literature.

AbstractThis article shares specific leadership findings from the evaluative study of action research AR (ESAR). Few studies have examined the leadership dynamic within action research (AR), and fewer still across multiple projects. Leadership surfaced as a critical element in the ESAR as we sought to examine processes, outcomes and impacts of AR at a meta level. Evidence was collected from six AR case study projects via interviews, survey, goal attainment scaling and documentary analysis, followed by a survey issued to 195 projects internationally (174 responded), that is, all of the projects recruited and compiled in our 'Directory' at the beginning of the ESAR. The findings revealed that leadership was more collaborative than hierarchical though there was evidence that a single key person leading was pivotal to enhancing processes, outcomes and impacts of the AR projects. In this article, we offer new thinking about leadership elements that enhance AR as well as contribute to the growing conversation about shared, collective and relational approaches to leadership situated within AR systems.

Awareness of conducting action research (AR) with a systems thinking orientation is increasing. We consider such orientation to be a fundamental, grounding, feature of AR. However, little exploration has occurred of how evaluation activity within AR, using a tool such as Goal Attainment Scaling (GAS), might enhance this orientation. We offer an argument for utilizing GAS to not only broaden action and deepen the research in individual AR projects, but also, for learning more about AR at a meta‐level where there is the increased complexity when evaluating multiple AR projects in diverse contexts. As well as theorizing the concepts noted, an outline of the way the evaluative study of action research (ESAR) customized and deployed GAS for evaluation of AR at both individual and meta‐levels is provided. The paper is a unique contribution to the domains of AR, systems thinking and evaluation methods. Copyright © 2017 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.