Particip,atory Action Research for Educational L 'Ship Using Data-Driven Decision Making to Improve Schools E ALANA JAMES Jones International University MARGARET T MILENKIEWICZ ALAN BUCKNAM Notchcode Creative Copyright © 2008 by Sage Publications, Inc All rights reserved No part of this book may be reproduced or utilized in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, or by any information storage and retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publisher for information: Sage Publications, Inc 2455 Teller Road Thousand Oaks, California 91320 E-mail: order@sagepub.com Sage Publications India Pvt Ltd B 11I Mohan Cooperative Industrial Area Mathura Road, New Delhi 110 044 India Sage Publications Ltd Oliver's Yard 55 City Road London, EC1 Y 1SP United Kingdom Sage Publications Asia-Pacific Pte Ltd 33 Pekin Street #02-01 Far East Square Singapore 048763 Printed in the United States of America Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data James, E Alana Participatory action research for educational leadership : using data-driven decision making to improve schoolslE Alana James, Margaret T Milenkiewicz, Alan Bucknam p.cm Includes bibliographical references and index ISBN 978-1-4129-3777-1 (pbk.) Action research in education Educational leadership Milenkiewicz, Margaret T II Bucknam, Alan III Title LB1028.24.J362008 370.7'2-dc22 2007004814 This book is printed on acid-free paper 07 08 09 10 Acquiring Editor: Editorial Assistant: Copy Editor: Typesetter: Proofreader: Indexer: Cover Designer: Marketing Manager: 11 10 Diane McDaniel Ashley Plummer Barbara Coster C&M Digitals (P) Ltd Anne Rogers Julie Sherman Grayson Bryan Fishman Nichole Angress Contents Acknowledgments Introduction Welcome to PAR for Educational Leaders Our Approach to PAR Our Readers Features How to Use This Book Final Notes The Participatory Action Research Model Reflective Questions Section 1: PAR-A Tool for Change PAR as a Tool for Educational Leadership Reflective Questions Section 2: Research and Action in the PAR Process Reflective Questions Section 3: Participatory Research as a Tool to Address Ada ptive Change An Example of PAR Use in the Classroom Task 1.1: Beginning a Reflective Journal Conclusion The Tenets of PAR: Ethics, Purpose, and Logic Reflective Questions Section 1: Ethics Ethical Elements Xl 1 9 12 12 16 17 19 22 23 25 25 26 28 Task 2.1: The Formation of an Ethical Plan for PAR Projects Reflective Questions Section 2: The Power of Purpose Format for Purpose Statements Task 2.2: Multiple Journal Entries Define Purpose Reflective Questions Section 3: Logic Models Task 2.3: Planning Your First Draft of Your Logic Model Conclusion Starting to Research Reflective Questions Section 1: Asking Good Research Questions Task 3.1: PAR Practitioners Reflect On and Share Their Initial Ideas for Research Questions Surfacing Assumptions Task 3.2: Surfacing Assumptions Reflective Questions Section 2: Informal and Formal Reviews of Literature Task 3.3: The Mini "Lit Review" Reflective Questions Section 3: A Brief Overview of the Basic Research Methods Qualitative Methods Quantitative Methods Reflective Practice Task 3.4: Reflective Journal Practice Conclusion Qualitative Data Collection How Is Qualitative Evidence Useful? What Makes Qualitative Evidence Difficult? Reflective Questions Section 1: Qualitative Data Collection Methods Data Collected Directly in Words From People: Interviews and Focus Groups Data Collected Through a Process of Change: Reflective DatalField Notes/Anecdotal Accounts Data Collected During the Event(s) Being Studied: Observations/Student Work/Logs Task 4.1: Collecting a Variety of Qualitative Data Reflective Questions 31 32 32 33 33 34 35 43 44 45 45 45 49 50 51 52 53 55 57 57 58 59 61 62 63 65 66 68 68 69 71 73 75 77 78 Section 2: Maximum Success and Rigor Managing Time and Resources How to Make It More Rigorous Introduction to Mixed Methodology Task 4.2: Data-Planning Matrix Conclusion Qualitative Analysis Reflective Questions Section 1: Stages in Analyzing Qualitative Evidence Graphic Organizers Codes Memos Families Triangulation Rubrics and Multiple Observers Similarities and Differences Reflective Questions Section 2: Validity, Credibility, and Reliability in the Analysis of Qualitative Data Task 5.1: Practice Analysis of Data Conclusion Quantitative Evidence Data Found in Schools Standardized Tests Reflective Questions Section 1: Questions Answered by Quantitative and Mixed Methods Evidence Observations and Time Studies Surveys or Questionnaires Descriptive Statistics Variance and Correlation Complex Questions Reflective Questions Section 2: Quantitative Data Collection Observations Questionnaires or Surveys Samples Time Series Reflective Questions 78 79 80 81 82 83 85 88 88 88 88 89 90 90 91 92 93 93 94 95 97 98 98 99 99 100 100 101 101 102 102 104 104 106 108 109 110 Section 3: Analysis and Statistical Information Descriptive Analysis Frequencies Survey Analysis Percentages and Mean Standard Deviation The t-Test Correlation Reporting Results Task 6.1: Preliminary Quantitative Analysis Conclusion Taking and Measuring Action Reflective Questions Section 1: How to Know What Actions to Take Three Continuums of Action The Continuum of Actions From Emancipatory to Professional Development The Continuum From the Individual to the Organizational Examples of PAR to Foster School Improvement Teachers or Support Staff in a Classroom or Whole-School Setting Principals Whole Schools or School Districts Reflective Question Section 2: Efforts at Change The Challenge of Inertia Defensive Behaviors Task 7.1: Analyzing Force Fields and Defensive Behaviors Reflective Questions Section 3: Measurement Formative Evaluation Focus and Responsiveness Determining Variables With Which to Measure Short-Term Outcomes Measuring Outcome Steps Conclusion Cycles of PAR: The Power of the Iterative Process Reflective Questions 110 113 113 115 115 117 118 121 122 123 123 125 126 126 126 128 129 130 130 131 132 133 133 133 136 137 139 139 139 141 141 142 144 145 148 Section 1: Messy Cycles Reflective Questions Section 2: Iterative Growth Diagnosis Action Measurement Reflection Time Line and Group Process for Significant Success Task 8.1: Using the Forward Planner Reflective Questions Section 3: Theoretical Understanding Bolsters Action and Vice Versa Conclusion Final Analysis and Results Alchemy Reasoning and Writing Standards for the Final Analysis Reflective Questions Section 1: Validity My "Real" World-or Yours? Theory Building and Testing Reporting the Analysis Process to Others Task 9.1: Building a Preliminary Report on the Analysis Process for Others Reflective Questions Section 2: Credible Interpretation Graphic Organizers Compelling Arguments Disclaimers Reflective Questions Section 3: Reliability Fallacy Reflective Questions Section 4: Passionate Conclusions Task 9.2: One Sentence and Three Words Conclusion 10 The Final Report Reflective Questions Section 1: The Formal Report The Formal Academic Report 148 150 150 150 151 152 153 153 154 156 156 157 159 160 160 162 163 163 164 165 165 167 168 168 169 169 170 170 170 172 173 173 173 174 177 180 180 181 Reflective Questions Section 2: The Formal Presentation Prior to Beginning Constraints Openings and Closings Content and How to Present It Reflective Questions Section 3: The Informal Individual Report Reflective Questions Section 4: The Community Report Conclusion 11 PAR for Educational Leadership Reflective Questions Section 1: A Creative Tool in Environments of Chaos and Complexity Counteracting Educator Mobility Inclusion: Both/And Rather Than Either/Or The Need for Flexibility Prediction: The Study of Outliers Feedback Loops Reflective Questions Section 2: A Tool for Adaptive Leadership Creating a Holding Environment Avoiding Implementation Failure Reflective Questions Section 3: PAR and Educational Reform Efforts Professional Learning Communities and Communities of Practice What Is Required? The Development of an Inclusive Leadership Structure Conclusion 183 183 184 185 185 185 186 186 187 188 188 191 192 193 194 194 195 195 196 197 198 199 199 200 200 201 202 203 204 Glossary 205 References 213 Index 223 About the Authors 235 Acknowledgments T o those who reviewed this book in process, we thank you for pressing us to sort out the forest from the trees This book improved greatly due to your efforts on its behalf Judith Adkison, University of North Texas Gary L Anderson, New York University Mary Brydon-Miller, University of Cincinnati Teresa T Field, Johns Hopkins University Emma Fuentes, University of San Francisco Elizabeth Grassi, Regis University Marjorie Hall Haley, George Mason University Leanne R Ketterlin-Geller, University of Oregon Scott Peters, Cornell University Barbara A Storms, California State University, East Bay Patricia Weaver, Henderson State University Brent G Wilson, University of Colorado at Denver Robert E Yager, University of Iowa xi 222 Participatory Action Research for Educational Leadership Educational resiliency: Student, teacher and school perspectives (pp 37 62) Greenwich, CT: Information Age Wenger, E (1998) Communities of practice: Learning, meaning, and identity Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press Wenger, E (2004) Communities of practice: A brief introduction Retrieved May 7, 2005, from http://www.ewenger.comltheorylcommunities_oLpractice_intro.htm Wenger, E., McDermott, R A., & Snyder, W (2002) Cultivating communities of practice: A guide to managing knowledge Boston: Harvard Business School Press Wenger, E., & Snyder, W (2000, January-February) Communities of practice: The organizational frontier Harvard Business Review, pp 139-145 Wheatley, M J (1992) Leadership and the new science: Learning about organization from an orderly universe San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler Wheatley, M J (1999) Leadership and the new science: Discovering order in a chaotic world (2nd ed.) San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler Whitehead, J., & McNiff, J (2006) Action research: Living theory London: Sage Wolk, E (2001) Pio Pico Student Researchers participatory action research: From classroom to community: Transforming teaching and learning [Electronic version] Retrieved July 21, 2006, from http://www.goingpublicwithteaching.orglewolkl Woolhouse, M (2005) You can't it on your own: Gardening as an analogy for personal learning from a collaborative action research group Educational Action Research, 13(1),27-42 World Bank Participation Sourcebook (1996) Participation in the education and training sector Retrieved July 22, 2006, from http://www.worldbank.org/wbi/source book/sba207.htm#F Young, M., Petersen, G., & Short, P (2001) The complexity of substantive reform: A call for interdependence among key stakeholders Paper presented at the Meeting of the National Commission for the Advancement of Educational Leadership Preparation, Racine, WI, September 19-21 Zeichner, K (2003) Teacher research as professional development for P-12 educators in the USA Educational Action Research, 11 (2),301-326 Zenisky, A L., Keller, L A., & Sireci, G (2004) A basic primer for understanding standardized tests and using test scores [Electronic version] Adventures in Assessment, 16 Retrieved July 6, 2006, from http://www.sabes.orglresources/adventures/v0116/ 16zenisky.htm Zohar, D., & Marshall, I (1994) The quantum society: Mind, physics, and a new social vision New York: Quill, William Morrow Zuber-Skerritt, O (1992) Professional development in higher education: A theoretical framework for action research London: Kogan Page Index Accountability, Act step, of PAR, 15table, 16fig Action See Taking and measuring action Action research (AR) Lewin's work in, PAR, scientific methods and, 1, Action stage of change measurement model,143 Adaptive change adaptive problems, defined, 17 holding environment concept, 17,18-19,24,197,199 inclusive leadership structure, 203-204 informed consent, defined, 18 order from chaos, 198 PAR use in the classroom, example, 19-22 Ahn, H.-N., 152 Akira Toki Middle School, Madison, Wisconsin, 130 Allers, D., 103table Altrichter, H., 201 Alvarado, Anthony, 194 Anderson, G L., 58, 94, 151, 163 Angelides, P., 131 Argyris, C, 1, 136, 137, 144 Bennett, N., 201 Bernhardt, V., 98, 102, 103table, 109 Bias in qualitative data collection, 68 in research questions, 46 subject harmed through, 29-30 Blakley-Reid, A., 160 Blessing, B., 129 Booth, W c., 169, 180 Brannick, T., 1,9,129,145,151,153,157, 181, 182 Bransford, J D., 40table Brause, R S., 165, 168, 169 Braxton, J., 134 Bray, J N., 9, 153 Brennan, M., 128 Brodhagen, B., 129 Bucknam, A., 16fig., 37fig., 41fig., 44fig., 45fig., 79fig., 86fig., 10Ifig., 116fig., 119fig., 122fig., 134fig., 135fig., 137fig., 138fig., 147fig., 148fig., 150fig., 166fig., 176fig., 192fig., 197fig Bullying, PAR process case, 130-131 Burnette, R., 201, 202 Byrne-Armstrong, H., 69, 72 Bagin, C B., 98 Baker, E., 29, 44 Baker, K., 172 Barell, J., 203 Basile, C, 203 Bassoff, T C, 19, 20, 21 Belmont Report, 1974, 28 Caboni, T., 134 Calhoun, E., 136 Camarota, S A., 204 Cambron-McCabe, N., 196 Caro-Bruce, C, 46, 61, 132-133 Carson, T., 61 Catalytic validity, 164 223 224 Participatory Action Research for Educational Leadership Chao, Ro, 131,203 Chaos theory, 193 Chavez, Cile, 194 Chrislip, Do Do, 198 Clements, Do, 131,203 Codes (data labels) qualitative analysis technique, 88-89, 93-94 Coghlan, Do, 1, 9, 129, 145, 153, 157, 181, 182 Cognitive dissonance, 133, 134 Cohen, L., 122 Collaborative work, communities of practice, 201-202 Cyprus case example, 131 flexibility and, 195 forward planner task, 154-155, 155table group process for significant success, 153-154 professional learning communities, 201-202 validity, credibility, and reliability, 93-94 without hierarchy, See also Critical friend concept Colomb, Go Go, 169, 180 Columbine Elementary School, Langmont, Colorado, 19-22 Committee on Developments in the Science of Learning, 40table Committee on Learning Research and Educational Practice, 40table Communities of practice concept, 201-202 Community involvement catalytic validity concept and, 164 community of practice, defined, 10 final report, community report, 184, 187, 188 group process for significant success, 153-154 informal group final report, 178 PAR and, 1,9 sustainability during leadership changes, 194 Compelling arguments, credibility of, 169-170 Complexity science, 193 Confidentiality, 28, 30 Contemplation stage of change measurement model, 143 Convenience sample, 108 Cook, Do, 151 Corbin, J., 38table, 40table, 69, 72, 88,89,92,160 Cornelius, C c., Correlation of quantitative evidence, 121-122, 122figo and variance, 101-102, 117 Costa, Ao, 30 Coughlan, Po, 145, 151 Covariance, 121 Crawford, L Wo, Credibility compelling arguments, 169-170 critical friends and, 183 disclaimers, 170 ethical considerations and, 44 of final analysis and results, 162-163 of final report, 178, 188-189 graphic organizers, 169 of literature review, 53 of metacyclic PAR, 157 methodology of study, 180 of PAR process, 11, 30 of qualitative analysis, 93-94, 95 of samples, 108 of time series, 109 Creswell, J Wo, 28, 32,45,58,59, 88,91, 92,109,121,122,160, 164, 168, 195 Critical friend concept bias issues, 68 data collection deadlines, 81 ethical considerations, 31 explanation of, 30 formal academic reports and, 183 formal presentations and, 184 graphic organizer planning, 83 observation checklists development, 106 participatory groups as, 4, 5, peer reviews, 53 in qualitative analysis, 84, 90, 91, 93 reflective journaling and, 50 surfacing assumptions, 51 validity and, 164, 183 Cross-case analysis, reliability and, 171-172 Cycles of PARo See Iterative process PAR cycles Dana, No Fo, 178, 181, 188 Data-driven decisions data-driven learning communities and, PAR and, Index Data labels (codes) qualitative analysis technique, 88-89 Davis, W A., 141 Defensive behaviors, challenge to school reform, 132-133 Democracy, democratization democratic validity, 163 PAR resulting in, 2, 10 research ethic concerning, 29 social justice for underserved populations, 128-129 Descriptive statistics, 101 Diagnosis step of PAR process, 15table, 16fig assumptions, defined, 49 bias avoidance, 46 conclusions regarding, 63 defined,35 initial ideas for, task, 49-51 iteration, defined, 46 key ideas, 56tables Likert scale, 59 literature review, 53, 54fig., 55, 63 literature review, peer reviews, 53 literature review, task, 55-57, 56tables mixed methodology, 60 neutral questions, 46table, 47, 63 questions to be addressed, 45-46, 46table, 47fig., 48-49, 63 questions to be addressed, task, 49-51 random control trials, 59 research methods, overview, 57-62, 63 research methods, qualitative, 58 research methods, quantitative, 59-60, 60table research methods, reflective practice, 61-62, 63 research methods, reflective practice, task,62 self-reflective questions, 46table, 47 surfacing assumptions, 50-51, 63 surfacing assumptions, task, 51-52, 51table survey, defined, 58 triangulation data comparison method, 60,81 variables of other researchers, 53 Dialogic validity, 164 Dick, B., 1, 145, 148, 156 DiClemente, C c., 143, 144 225 Differences and similarities qualitative analysis technique, 91 Dillard, V., Disciplinary action, PAR process case example, 132 Disclaimers, credibility of, 170 Dorner, D., 200 DuFour, R., 201, 202 Dutton, J., 196 Eaker, R., 201, 202 Earl, L., 201 Early, M., 10-11 Ecological fallacy, 172 Ecord, E., 76 Educational leadership adaptive leadership tool, 198-200 communities of practice, 201-202 complex and chaotic environments, 191-192, 192fig.• 193-197 conclusions regarding, 204 distributed leadership, 201 educational reform efforts, 200-204 educator mobility deterrent, 194 feedback loops, 196-197 flexibility importance, 195 group dynamics, 202-203 holding environment creation, 197, 199 holistic nature of education, 203 implementation failure avoidance, 199-200 inclusion focus, 194-195 inclusive leadership structure development, 203-204 observation, communication importance, 196-197 partnering atmosphere focus, 203 professional learning communities, 201-202 reflection necessity, 191, 192fig study of outliers, prediction, 195-196, 197fig sustainability during leadership changes, 194 technology and immigration impact, 204 Elliott, J., 9, 200 Epstein, J L., 73, 91, 203 ESL students, 10-11, 196 Essex, M., 172 Ethics, purpose, and logic biomedical experiment atrocities, 27-28 conclusions regarding, 44 226 Participatory Action Research for Educational Leadership logic models, 27, 35-43 PAR tenets, 26fig purpose, 32-35 purpose statements, 27 purpose statements, defined, 25 student personal information conflict, 30 tenets, defined, 25 See also Ethics, purpose, and logic: ethics; Ethics, purpose, and logic: logic; Ethics, purpose, and logic: purpose Ethics, purpose, and logic: ethics Belmont Report of ethical principles, 28 beneficence concept, 29, 44 bias concept, 29-30 confidentiality, 28, 30, 44 critical friend concept, 30 democracy concept, 29 disclosure, 29 embarrassment and, 29 ethical elements, 28-31 ethical plan formation task, 31-32 harm, defined, 26 harm element, 28, 29, 44 informed consent, in educational studies, 26,28,29,31,44 institutional review, 28 previous knowledge base, 25 respect importance, 25 validity, credibility, reliability, 30, 44 Ethics, purpose, and logic: logic credibility, 168-169 first draft planning task, 43 grounded theory systemic methodology, 38 logic models, defined, 35 measurement in multiple cycles, 152 PAR process steps, 37fig., 42fig PAR first cycle of research, 36table PAR second cycle, 38-39, 38table PAR third cycle of research, 39, 40table purpose to research design analysis flow, 35 rational progression of steps, 35 research methodology management, 39-42, 41fig., 42fig., 44 research questions evolution, 35 review of literature, 36table, 37-38, 39-40 variables to be measured, 36-37, 36table,53 Ethics, purpose, and logic: purpose, 33 action outcome focus, 32, 33 context factors, 33 methodology choice and, 33 multiple journal entries purpose task, 33-34 population and context of study, 33 purpose statement format, 25, 33, 44 student achievement increase purpose, 32 Evangelou, M., 131 Evans, C A., 38, 38table, 40table Fallacy, 172-173 Families theme qualitative analysis technique, 90, 93-94 Fiester, L., 141 Final analysis and results conclusions regarding, 174-176 credible interpretation, 168-170, 175 cumulative process of, 160 data patterns and themes, 159-160, 162 empowerment of writing, 162 final report goal, 160 last cycle determination, 162-163 objectivity through time and collaboration, 159 one sentence and three words, task, 173-174 in the PAR process, 159-160, 161fig passionate conclusions, 173-174, 176fig reasoning and writing, 160, 162 reliability, 170-173, 175 reporting analysis process to others, 165-166 standards for final analysis, 162-163 validity, 163-168,175 "whose reality" concept, 159, 164-165,172 See also Credibility; Reliability; Validity Final report "aha" moments concept, 180 appendices section, 183 background section, 180 community report, 187, 189 conclusion section, 182-183 conclusions regarding, 187 content, 185-186 critical friends and, 183, 184 discussion section, 182 Index district or school publication informal report, 187 encouraging action, 186 faculty meeting informal report, 187 finality or closure of the project, 178 formal academic report, 178, 180, 181-183 formal presentation, 179table, 183-186, 189 formal report, 177, 179table, 180-183,188-189 graphic organizers in, 183 informal group report, 178, 179table informal individual report, 179table, 186-187,189 intended audience, 177, 178, 180, 182, 184, 188 literature review, 178 metaphorical images, 180 methodology section, 180 openings and closings, 185 personal contact informal report, 187 qualitative vs quantitative research issue, 179, 180 reflective data section, 182 reframing technique, 188 report groupings, 177-178, 179table reporting to different constituencies, 159 results section, 180-181 school district or state-level conferences informal report, 187 time constraints, 185 Fitz-Gibbon, C T., 141, 142, 186 Flexibility, 195 Focus groups, defined, 13-14 Focus program evaluation standard, 141 Force field analysis (Lewin), 134 Formative evaluation, 139, 140 Fowler, F J., 106, 107, 108 Francis, D ]., 103table Freire, P., 10, 19, 128 Frequencies, of quantitative evidence, 113-114, 114tables Fullan, M., 56table, 131, 191, 194, 198, 199 Garman, N B., 160 Garmston, R., 184, 185, 193, 194, 195, 196 Garson, G D., 160, 172, 173 Gladwell, M., 135 Glanz, J., 81 227 Good Little School (Basile), 203 Gorad, S., 59 Goree, K., 29, 44 Goudvis, A., 36table, 38table, 40table, 41fig., 54fig Gough, A., 131 Graphic organizer qualitative analysis technique, 88 credibility of, 169 in final report appendices, 183 Gray,] P., 196 Greenwood, D ]., 10, 136, 137, 198 Grounded theory systemic methodology, 38,91 Hand, D., 109 Hargreaves, A., 199 Harm beneficence concept, 29 defined,26 research ethics regarding, 26 Harris, M J., 58 Harvey, S., 36table, 38table, 40table, 41fig., 54fig Heifetz, R A., 17, 195, 198,199 Heintzman, L., 151 Herman,] L., 141, 142, 186 Herr, K., 58, 94, 151, 163 H&HM See Homelessness, high mobility Higgs, J., 69, 72, 94 Holding environment adaptive change concept of, 17, 18-19, 24, 197, 199 defined,17 Hollingsworth, S., 126, 128 Homelessness, high mobility adaptive leadership focus, 204 adult literacy project, 152 Columbine Elementary School case example, 19-22 forward planner task, 154-155, 155table outliers concept, 196 PAR methods and, questions maturing with iterations, 151 welcoming school culture case example, 131 Hopkins,] V., 29, 44 Horsfall, D., 69, 72 228 Participatory Action Research for Educational Leadership Houghton, S., 129 Hoyle, R H., 58 Hubbard, R S., 180, 188 Hughes, L, 150, 152 Human justice, Inertia challenge, to school reform, 133-136, 134fig., 135fig task regarding, 138-139, 138fig Inferential statistics, 102, 113 Informed consent defined,18 research ethics and, 29 Iterative process PAR cycles diagnosis step of underlying issues mature, 150-151 action step of research mature, 151-152 measurement step, 152 reflection as cognitive and affective step, 153 group process for significant success, 153-154 time line, 153-154 forward planner task, 154-156 conclusions regarding, 157 iteration, defined, 46 messy cycles, 148-150, 149fig meta-analysis principle, 152 meta cycle concept, 151-152 multiple cycles importance, 145, 146fig., 147-148, 147fig questions maturing with iterations, 150-151 remaining on target guideposts, 149 theoretical understandings bolstering action, 156-157 Jackson, S L., 113 James, E A., 10, 17, 19, 73, 84n 1, 129, 144,151,152,153,191,198,199,202 Johnson, N A., 128 Judd, C M., 58 Kalinosky, K., 152 Kallick, B, 30 Kania, J V., 17 Katz, S., 201 Keegan, J., 73 Keene, E 0., 36table, 38table, 40table, 41fig., 54fig Keller, L A., 98 Kemmis, S., 2, 126, 148 Kent, R., 107 Kieffer, M., 103table Kim, D.-M., 152 Kleiner, A., 196 Kock, N F., Jr., 147, 152, 156, 157 Kolb, D A., 203 Kramer, M R., 17 Kurosawa, A., 84 Ladder of inference problem-solving strategy, 137, 137fig Lee, J., 9, 153 Leedy, P D., 59, 102, 104, 106, 121, 164 Legard, R., 73 Leigh, J., 131 Leseaux, N., 103table Levin, M., 10, 137, 198 Levine, J H., Levy, P., 169, 177 Lewin, Kurt, 9, 134 Lewis, J., 58, 165, 171 Lexico Publishing, 50 Likert Scale, 59, 101, 107, 115table, 116fig., 116table Local measurements, in qualitative data collection, 67fig Loerke, K., 148 Logic See Ethics, purpose, and logic: logic Logic of Failure (Dorner), 200 Lohner, R M., 84 Lomax, P., 90, 91, 129, 187, 188 Lopez, G., 71 Lowry Elementary School, Denver, Colorado, See also Homelessness, high mobility Lucas, T., 196 Madison Metropolitan School District, Illinois, 132-133 Maintenance stage of change measurement model, 143 Manion, L., 122 Mapp, K L., 71 Marshall, L, 196 Maxwell, J A., 69, 72, 82, 84, 88, 89, 91,92,94,160,164,165 Mayer, M., 195 Index McDermott, R A., 10,201 McKay, ].,61 McKernan, ]., 9, 73, 90, 94, 106, 178, 200 McNiff,]., 48,61, 90,91, 129, 156, 187, 188 McQueen, R.]., 147, 152, 156, 157 McSwain, M G., McTaggart, R., 2,147,148,178 McVicker,]., 151 Mead, Margaret, 129 Mean scores, 102, 113 Measure step, of PAR, 15table, 16fig Memos qualitative analysis technique, 89-90, 94 Meta-analysis principle, 152 Mills, G E., 178 Mixed methodology concept, 60 credibility, 168 in qualitative data collection, 81-82, 84,94 Morris, L L., 141, 142, 186 Multiple observers qualitative analysis technique, 91 Murray, M.S., Mutual inquiry, National Institutes of Health, 27, 28 National Research Council, 40table Nelson, s L., 59, 118 Newton, R R., 178 Nihlen, A 5., 58, 94 Noddings, N., 29, 203 Noffke, S E., 61, 91, 126, 128 Norcross, ] c., 143, 144 Oberg, D., 148 Observations qualitative data collection method, 75-76 O'Kelly, D., 173 On Whose Terms (Lopez), 71 Open codes qualitative analysis technique, 89 Organizational development theory PAR and, 1, 9, 129-130, 193 Ormrod,] E., 59, 102, 104, 106, 121, 164 Outcome validity, 163 Outliers, study of, 195-196, 197fig Padron, Y N., 196 PAR See Participatory action research; Participatory action research (PAR) model 229 Participatory action research (PAR) AR, scientific methods and, book applications, 3-4, book features, 4-5 collaborative work, 2, data-driven learning communities, definitions, methodology, 2-3 Diagnose, Act, Measure, Reflect steps in, educational leaders and, 1-2 educational leadership tool, 9-12 human justice and democracy values and, Lewin's work and, participatory research group concept, 3, as practiced in education, professional development and, reflective journal practice,S, 8-9 school reform and, See also Adaptive change; Educational leadership; Ethics, purpose, and logic; Fin:>l analysis and results; Final report; Iterative process PAR cycles; Participatory action research (PAR) model; Qualitative analysis; Qualitative data collection; Quantitative evidence; Quantitative research; Reflective journaling; Taking and measuring action Participatory action research (PAR) model, action and knowledge focus of, 13 adaptive change tool, 17-23 AR vs scientific method in, classroom use example, 19-22 collaborative participation, 8, community of school practitioners, 9, 10-11,24 conclusions regarding, 23-24 content and context focus of, 11 definitions, democratization result from, 2, 10 focus groups, defined, 13-14 methodological outcomes, Iltable motivation, energization focus of, 11-12,11table outcomes, 11, 11table professional development, 3, 7, 9, 11, 11table, 129 qualitative vs quantitative research, 14,24,29 230 Participatory Action Research for Educational Leadership reflective journal practice, as data source, 13, 14-15,22-23,24 research and action in, 12-15 research design, defined, 14 research methods, defined, 13 steps in, 15table, 16fig., 24 subjective reflection, transient student homework focus, See also Adaptive change Patton, M Q., 69, 72, 88, 89, 91, 92, 160, 164, 170, 171 Payne, R., 37, 38table, 40table Pearson r statistical measure, 121-122 Peer review of published literature, 53 Petersen, G., 204 Pflug, R., 148 Piantanida, M., 160 Population purpose statement and, 33 Positivist theoretical doctrine, 156, 157 Power, B M., 180, 188 Precontemplation stage of change measurement model, 143 Process validity, 163 Prochaska, ] 0., 143, 144 Professional development avoiding implementation failure, 199-200 educational reform efforts, 200-204 PAR and, 3, 9, 11, 11table, 129, 193-194, 198, 199 Professional learning communities (PLC) model,201-202 Purpose purpose statements, defined, 25 See also Ethics, purpose, and logic: purpose Putnam, R., 136, 137, 144 Pyle, M D., 29, 44 Qualitative analysis archaeologist analogy to, 85 coding technique, 86fig., 88-89, 93-94 conclusions regarding, 95 credibility, 168-170 after diagnosis and measurement, 85, 86fig families theme technique, 90, 93-94 first processes of, 87fig graphic organizers, 88, 169 grounded theory, 91 memos, 89-90, 94 open codes, 89 practice data analysis, task, 94-95 reporting analysis process to others, 165-166, 166fig rubrics and multiple observers, 91 selective coding, 89 similarities and differences, 92 sorting vs comparison strategies of, 88 trend analysis, 91 triangulation, 90-91, 94 validity, credibility, and reliability, 93-94 See also Qualitative data collection; Qualitative research Qualitative data collection anecdotal evidence and logs method, 70table, 74-75, 84 attributes of, 66, 68, 69-70table bias in, 68, 84 causal relationships examined by, 68 challenges of, 68, 69-70table choice-making elements and process of, 78, 79fig conclusions regarding, 83-84 context examined by, 66 credibility, 168-170 critical friend concept, 83, 84 data analysis, 68 data-planning matrix, task, 82-83 fallacy and, 172-173 field notes method, 70table, 74, 84 focus groups method, 69table, 71-73, 84 graphic organizer for, 78table, 83table, 169 interview method, 69table, 71-73, 84 meaning examined by, 66 mixed methodology, 81-82, 84 multiple sources collection task, 77-78, 84 observations method, 70table, 75-76,84 parent and community involvement case example, 71, 84n Rashomon film example, 68, 172 reflective journal method, 70table, 73-74, 84 reporting analysis process to others, 165-166, 166fig rigor addition strategies, 80-81 semistructured interviews, 73, 92 shadowing method, 76 structured interviews, 72, 92 Index student work method, 70table, 75-76, 77, 84 time and resources management, 79-80, 84 understanding of process examined by, 68 unstructured interviews, 72-73, 73 validity of, 164-165 See also Qualitative analysis; Qualitative research Qualitative research benefits of, 58 defined,14 logistical considerations for, 60table surfacing assumptions, 52 time constraint in, 58 validity of, 164-165 vs quantitative research, 14, 24, 29, 60table, 63 See also Qualitative analysis; Qualitative data collection Quantitative evidence achievement and aptitude measures, 98-99 analysis and statistical information, 11 0, 112fig complex questions, 102, 103table conclusions regarding, 123-124 correlation, 121-122, 122fig covariance, 121 credibility, 168-170 data types and corresponding questions, 103table descriptive analysis, 113 descriptive statistics, 101 fallacy and, 172-173 frequencies, 113-114, 114tables graphic organizers, 169 inferential statistics, 102, 113 Likert Scale, 101, 107, 115table, 116fig., 116table mean scores, 102, 113 objectivity, 106 observations and time studies, 100, 104, 106 in PAR process, 99-100, 100fig., 105fig , 110, 112fig Pearson r statistical measure, 121-122 percentages and mean, 113, 115, 115table, 116fig., 116table, 117 preliminary quantitative analysis, task, 123 questionnaires or surveys, 100-101, 106-108 231 random samples, 108-209 reporting analysis process to others, 166, 166fig reporting results, 122-123 samples, 108-109 scatter chart, 121, 122fig school improvement movement and, 97-98, 102 standard deviation from the mean, 113,117-118, 118table, 119fig standardized test data, 98-99 survey analysis, 100-101, 115 surveys or questionnaires, 100-101, 106-108 the t-Test, 118-121, 120tables, 122 time series, 109-110, 111fig variance and correlation, 101-102, 117 vs qualitative observations, 104 See also Quantitative research Quantitative research credibility, 168-170 embarrassment and informed consent, 29 Likert scale, 59 logistical considerations for, 60table random control trials, 59 scales, defined, 59 surfacing assumptions, 52 vs qualitative research, 14, 24, 29, 60table, 63 See also Quantitative evidence Quantum physics, 196 Questionnaires, 100-101, 106-108 Rabenstine, A., 130 Rahn, J., 151 Ramsey, F L., 113 Random control trials, 59 Random samples, 108-109 Rashomon film, 68, 172 Reflective journaling, 5, 15table, 16fig initial ideas for research questions, 49-50 procedure, 22-23 as qualitative data, 9, 13 as research method, 62, 63 steps in, 61 surfacing assumptions, 51-52, 51table, 63 vs field notes or anecdotal evidence, 74 232 Participatory Action Research for Educational Leadership Reliability critical friends and, 183 cross-case analysis, 171-172 ethical considerations and, 44 fallacy, 172-173 of final analysis and results, 162-163 of final report, 178, 188-189 flexibility and, 195 internal and external, 171 literature review importance, 171 meta-analysis method and, 152 of metacyclic PAR, 157 of PAR process, 11, 30 of PAR theory, 156 of qualitative analysis, 93-94, 95 of qualitative data collection, 79 of quantitative analysis, 99, 100-101, 107,124 of samples, 108 transfer applicability, 171 Research design, defined, 14 Research methods, defined, 13 Responsiveness program evaluation standard, 141 Results See Final analysis and results Reverby, S M., 28 Reynolds,]., 12, 13, 73 Ritchie, J., 58, 165, 171 Rivera, H., 103table Rivera, M., 103table Roberts, C M., 170 Roberts, J M., 178, 198 Robertson,] M., 203 Rosas, L 0., 128 Rubrics qualitative analysis technique, 91 Ruder, L M., 98 Rudestam, K E., 178 Sagor, R., 61, 74, 76, 133, 135, 169, 183, 186, 187 Samples, as quantitative evidence, 108-109 Saurino, D R., Scales, defined, 59 Scatter chart, 121, 122fig Schafer, D W., 113 Schon, D A., 1, 56table, 137, 144 School reform case examples, 130-131 PAR and, quantitative evidence and, 97-98, 102 whole school or school districts improvement, 132-133 Schostak, J F., 159, 172 Science education, PAR process case, 131 Scientific methods PAR and, vs AR, Scott, J L., 147, 152, 156, 157 Selective coding qualitative analysis technique, 89 Semistructured interviews, 73, 92 Senge, P M., 1, 137, 144, 194, 196 Sergiovanni, T ]., 56table Shadowing qualitative data collection method, 76 Shapiro, N S., Sharpley, B., 131 Short, P., 204 Similarities and differences qualitative analysis technique, 91 Sireci, G., 98 Skrobela, J., 151 Smith, B., 196 Smith, D M., 136, 137, 144 Smith, L L., 9, 153 Smith, S E., 128 Snape, D., 58, 69, 72 Snyder, W., 10, 201, 202 Social justice, 2, 128-129 Soffer, E., 132 Sommers, c., 44 Sommers, F., 44 Spencer, L., 58, 69, 72 Stages of change outcome measurement model,142-143 Standard deviation from the mean, 113, 117-118, lIStable, 119fig Standardized tests, 98-99 Stanton-Salazar, R D., 196 Statistics, 101 Stecher, B M., 141 Stenhouse, L., 9, 200 Stevenson, R B., 61, 91, 126, 130, 202, 203 Index Strauss, A., 38table, 40table, 69, 72, 88, 89, 92, 160 Stringer, E T., 30, 73, 178 Structured interviews, 72, 92 Sumara, D., 61 Summative evaluation, 139, 163 Survey(ies) defined,58 non-response answers, 107-108 piloting a survey, 107 as quantitative evidence, 100-101, 106-108 survey analysis, 100-101, 115 Systems theory ladder of inference problem-solving strategy, 137, 137fig PAR and, t-Test, 118-121, 120tables Taking and measuring action action science concepts, 136 analyzing force fields and defensive behaviors, task, 138-139 challenge of defensive behaviors, 136-139,138fig challenge of inertia, 133-136, 134fig., 135fig., 138fig classroom or whole-school setting context, 130-131 cognitive dissonance barrier to, 134 conclusions regarding, 144 continuum from emancipatory to professional development, 128-129 continuum from individual to organizational, 129-130 continuums of action, 126, 128 focus and responsiveness, 141 formative vs summative evaluation measurement, 139, 141 guidelines for action, 126 ladder of inference problem-solving strategy, 137, 137fig measurement, in PAR process, 139, 140fig outcome steps measurement, 142-144 PAR process and, 125-126, 127fig personalized "living theory" research, 129 principals, 131-132 school improvement focus, 130 short-term outcomes measurement variables, 141-142 social justice for underserved populations, 128-129 stages of change outcome measurement model, 142-143 tipping point concept, 135-136, 135fig whole schools or school districts context, 132-133 Tenets of PAR defined,25 See also Ethics, purpose, and logic Termination stage of change measurement model, 143 Theory building and testing, 164 Thomas, R M., 58,160,165,170 Thoreau Elementary School, Madison, Wisconsin, 131 Time series, of quantitative evidence, 109-110, 111fig Timmerman, M A., 152 The Tipping Point (Gladwell), 135 Tipping point concept, in taking action, 135-136, 135fig Tomal, D R., 129, 132 Trend analysis qualitative analysis technique, 91 Triangulation credibility, 169 data comparison method, 60, 81, 90 in final report, 178 graphic organizers, 169 from multiple PAR cycles, 157 qualitative analysis technique, 90-91, 94 Tuskegee Syphilis Study, 27-28 Unstructured interviews, 72-73 U.S Department of Health and Human Services, 28, 29 Valentine, T., 102 Validity catalytic validity, 164 compelling arguments, 169-170 conclusions vs real world, 164 critical friends and, 183 233 234 Participatory Action Research for Educational Leadership democratic validity, 163 dialogic validity, 164 ethical considerations and, 44 of final analysis and results, 162-163 of final report, 178, 188-189 flexibility and, 195 improvement results from the study, 163 knowledge increase goal, 163 of metacyclic PAR, 157 methodology of study, 180 outcome validity, 163 of PAR process, 11, 30 of PAR theoretical outcomes, 156 preliminary report on analysis process, task, 167-168 process validity, 163 of qualitative analysis, 93-94 qualitative data collection and, 79, 164-165 of quantitative analysis, 124, 164-165 of questionnaires, surveys, 107 reporting the analysis process, 165-167,166fig of samples, 108 surfacing assumptions and, 52 theory building and testing, 165 of time series, 109 triangulation, mixed methodologies and,60,81 Vancouver School District, British Columbia, 10-11 Variables defined,37 in literature review, 53 in PAR process, 36-37, 36table, 45, 45fig in qualitative data collection, 67fig in quantitative data collection, 105fig Wampold, B E., 152 Ward, K., 73 Watling, R., 160 Watson, P., 148 Watson-Peterson, M., 132 Waxman, H., 196 Wegner, E., 131 Wellman, B., 184, 185, 194, 195, 196 Wenger, E., 10, 201, 202 Wheatley, M J., 196, 198 Whitehead, J., 90, 91, 129, 156, 187, 188 Wilkinson, M., 126 William, R., 150, 152 Williams, J M., 169, 180 Willms, D G., 128 Wise, c., 201 Wolk, E., 128 Woods, P., 201 Woolhouse, M., 128 World Bank Participation Sourcebook, 128 Yendol-Silva, D., 178, 181, 188 Yorks, L., 9, 153 Young, M., 204 Zeichner, K., 132-133,200,202 Zenisky, A L., 98 Zimmerman, S., 36table, 38table, 40table, 41fig., 54fig Zohar, D., 196 Zuber-Skerritt, 0., 9, 10,200 About the Authors E Alana James, MNM, EdD, is the associate chairperson of the Jones International University (Jill) EdD program She has worked in education for two decades, often using community-based resources to aid educational activities in developing programs for high-risk youth She serves as coordinator of professional development for the School of Education at JIU, where she provokes substantive conversation about the similarities and differences of teaching online rather than in a face-to-face venue She designed and serves as the primary facilitator for the Web-Based Professional Development (WBPD) project, sponsored by the National Center for School Engagement Participants in this project are school administrators, teachers, and community members using participatory action research as professional development to study and develop programs for students experiencing homelessness and high mobility Originating during 2003 from a face-to-face participatory action research environment in Colorado with 18 educators, the WBPD project evolved into a blended but primarily online activity that serves educators across the United States To date, project this project has included 90 participants in 34 communities in eight states across the United States She completed her doctoral work at Teachers College, Columbia University, in educational leadership Margaret T Milenkiewicz is an educational consultant working in Ireland and in the United States Her work centers on professional development for educators and on the furthering of community and school partnerships to benefit the highest risk students During the 2003-2004 school year, in partnership with a private foundation while working for the Colorado Department of Education, her office sponsored participatory action research for the development of educational practices for homeless and highly mobile students She authored multiple publications and presented at numerous national and state conferences on the development of programs for students experiencing homelessness 235 236 Participatory Action Research for Educational Leadership Alan Bucknam, AlGA, is the owner and principal of Notchcode Creative, a visual communications studio in Colorado He has over 13 years' experience in graphic design, branding, and integrated marketing Graduating with a BFA in photography from the Savannah College of Art and Design in 1993, his background includes small boutique design studios and a large private university Since opening Notchcode for business in 1999, he has created award-winning campaigns for local and national clients in the nonprofit, small business, corporate, and government sectors ... Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data James, E Alana Participatory action research for educational leadership : using data- driven decision making to improve schoolslE Alana James, Margaret T...Particip,atory Action Research for Educational L ''Ship Using Data- Driven Decision Making to Improve Schools E ALANA JAMES Jones International University... the United States-as educational leaders are held to high standards for both data- driven decisions and community involvement 2 Participatory Action Research for Educational Leadership PAR incorporates