The Role of Leadership within an Action Research Study of Secondary Science Assessment Praxes, 5(8)

Thomas G. Ryan

thomas.ryan@uleth.ca
University of Lethbridge

---

 

Abstract

Arguably, leadership is an integral element of all human endeavours. Using leadership as a lens this paper addresses the role of leadership within an action research study of secondary science teachers’ assessment praxes. The traditional image of the leader is abandoned in favour of a facilitative, collaborative leader who supports participants in their journey towards new understandings of assessment theory and praxis. In sum, it is realized that the careful, informed leader of action research plays a significant and central role in the professional development of fellow educators.

---

Introduction

The image of a leader is often one of standing alone or above a number of followers. I rejected this traditional image and preferred to stand with others as I led fellow educators through a recent practical action research study. From the onset of our practical action research project, I felt a deep sense of responsibility. I was, after all, asking people to follow an agenda that was largely crafted by me. I wanted to lead and I believed I could; however, these were only departure points on the path to leadership which served to usher me into new territory. This was my first action research project. I had taken graduate courses, read journals and textbooks, and attended regional workshops to prepare for this experience. The four secondary science teachers who volunteered to be part of this project had done so to improve their assessment praxes and at the same time realize some degree of professional development, as required by their school administration.

Departure

As we began our study, the newness of each conversation and the resultant energy made leading somewhat confusing and invisible. Yet, the task of leading was something I could feel every time I looked into a group member’s face. At times, the mental replay of this act of looking was a haunting memory, and, at other times, it was a source of inspiration. To mediate the concurrent feelings, I was direct and respectful in the face of any communications. On November 19, 1997, I had to deal with the issue of conflict, which caused me to write in my journal:

Today, I spoke to the group about conflict between people and each one suggested that some things are dealt with and some are not. No one would talk about the other, but we had a couple of good laughs about staff meetings and how some staff take up all the time with complaints, and as a group it is hard to get consensus no matter how good the leader is as a negotiator. It reminded me of some memorable staff meetings I have been part of. (p. 22)

As we pushed through our study, I remember feeling annoyed by the fact that our schedule tied me down somewhat as a leader. I was becoming weary at times with the leadership workload. What kept me going was the enthusiasm of the participants who seemed to welcome the adult conversations we had.

My goal all along as a leader was to illuminate assessment praxes in a non-evaluative mode of collaborative, participatory action research (McTaggart, 1997). Each of the four participants was joined by a thematic concern to inform and improve assessment. Collectively, these teachers and I chose science as the context in order to examine our current assessment practices.

Problem Rationale

We attempted to answer two sets of research questions. The first set involves the nature of assessment, as I asked, what was the current state of assessment practice in secondary science? What were participants' actual practices at the onset of this research? To what extent did these initial understandings and actual practices change due to the illumination of assessment praxes? The second set of research questions, concerning the nature of action research, was addressed by asking, what did participants learn about action research? What other learning and professional gains were realized during this study? Lastly, what did I learn about action research and assessment through my involvement in this study?

Roles

A leader, in the context of researching, needs to establish trust (Pedretti, 1996) which often means being predictable over time. For me, I knew I had many assets that would become apparent in the days and months that followed. I was a qualified, hard worker who was enthusiastic as I offered praise in an open manner. In doing so, I built confidence and motivated others. Teachers were able to connect, exchange and grow together professionally (Zuber-Skerritt, 1996). Our work was systematic and informing and brought about change through reflection and discussion. I saw my efforts as a means to release human potential, balance needs, defend values and instil a sense of initiative, which would become my responsibility to monitor and nurture (Rudduck, 1991). As a leader and coach, I had to be in touch with my own and other participants’ changing understandings (Schön, 1987). This task was more accessible once our group, under my leadership, began to communicate aloud.

Once we began communicating, I quickly realized the extent of my roles, which included being a facilitator, motivator, consultant and participant. I found that these roles were intertwined and not distinctly separated by time or context. To facilitate, it was necessary to be flexible by changing the schedule according to participants’ needs or meeting where and when participants could, in order to achieve sought-after results. In addition, being receptive to what was said and not immediately being argumentative facilitated communications. Participants needed support, as their lives were complex enough teaching full-time. I acted as a motivator when the early meetings were held, and I would go to the school the day before interviews to listen to whatever each participant wanted to discuss. By doing this, each participant, including myself, had an outlet for individual concerns and problems and had an opportunity for some general conversation. Maintaining contact and a presence was necessary to keep our study in the forefront of each participant’s mind. The study could have been easily pushed aside by sports tournaments, exams, and general school activities, not to mention the two-week late-November strike by Ontario teachers. During the strike, I visited the picket line and listened to their frustrations. I offered positive insights concerning teaching, science, and assessment. In other words, a major part of my role was maintenance of the group and fostering of group cohesion (optimism).

I also was a guide, a collaborator and researcher. As a participant action researcher, I learned how to engage in action research and sharpened my understanding of assessment issues. Initially, the act of reflection on assessment praxes was awkward, as our language was not common or efficient. In the absence of shared meaning, our assessment language caused frequent misunderstanding. It required a great deal of probing via clarifying questions to realize a satisfactory level of shared understanding. Eventually, our meanings became shared, understood, and led to critical reflection. I also began to appreciate that "all researchers conduct research using a particular lens and that focus has a bearing in what is seen, recognized as significant, and ultimately reported" (Wideen, Mayer-Smith & Moon, 1998, p. 131).

Leadership Intentions

I believe, like others, that action research in general ". . . is one way of restoring and enhancing professional confidence. Action research provides teachers with a more appropriate alternative to traditional research designs, one that is, in aspiration at least, emancipatory" (Hopkins, 1993, p. 56). In order to ensure that we achieved these outcomes (professional development, enhanced confidence, increased assessment literacy) our action research effort followed these principles: It did not interfere with the regular routines, it was efficient, it demonstrated commitment, it was ethical, and it was collaborative (we had a shared vision) (Hopkins, 1993). I was interested in my own interactions as well as other participants as we moved towards new understandings. I recorded my thoughts on October 15th (1997):

I find that meeting so many new people has caused me to lose sight of why I’m here at the school. If I didn’t have a plan and schedule I believe much of the time would slip by quickly and I would fail to get it documented. It makes me anxious and uncomfortable to know that I have to produce something noteworthy. I reassure myself that it will be interesting without me having to do anything more than record and collect evidence. Still, I get this nagging feeling that I’m not doing it right so, I reread a few texts and I calm down ready for tomorrow’s interview. (p. 10)

Another trait of our action research paradigm included systematic inquiry, which was collective, collaborative, self-reflective, critical and undertaken by all participants (Kemmis & McTaggart, 1988a; McCutcheon & Jung, 1990). Action research is, after all, an exercise in participation as the implicit theoretical perspectives of teachers' assessment praxes emerge through discussions and observations, which are often dialectic. These means of communication produce data, which are then scrutinized, challenged and refined through recursive group activities (Hopkins, 1993). However, it’s a lengthy and piecemeal process, in which group members can fight tenaciously for the views they hold because they are embedded within a wider set of values that they hold dear. These value positions are challenged and, through these exchanges, new positions may be assumed, which sustain a sense of belonging in the group.

Leadership Concerns: Participants as Cases

Action research, by supporting the collection of data, is often quite removed from restrictive conventional rules of the research game (Guba, 1996) and is vulnerable to criticism of its validity and reliability, objectivity and generalizability. Nonetheless, action research uses acceptable qualitative means to gather data that eventually result in evidence. The data are built upon mental constructions and interpretations (Guba, 1996). The question, however, is omnipresent: To what extent are the data, evidence, and means of inquiry accurate, truthful, and acceptable?

In order to instil accuracy and fairness, a systematic approach (schedule) and careful consideration of individual assessment concerns and priorities were used to ensure that each participant's assessment perspectives were given due consideration. Hence, each participant became a case study. "Case study is not a method as is sometimes assumed, but a focus of the study, whether that focus is a single classroom, institution or system. The essential feature is the case" (Simons, 1989, p. 116). Since there were four teachers, there were four case studies. The fifth case involved myself, cast in the role of leader, action researcher, participant, facilitator, collaborator, supporter, associate, and consultant. Each case became a body of knowledge well documented and, when possible, triangulated through other sources of information.

Data were recorded in participant journals and classroom observations, and all discussions were tape-recorded. Subsequently, transcribed data were interpreted and studied by all participants. Editing was completed and a final draft was fashioned into accounts. It is these accounts, viewed through different lenses that were subjected to interpretative theory. As well, reflection was used to crystallize interpretation using a framework best understood as interpretive questioning (Stringer, 1996). This included such probes as why, what, how, who, where, and when. This systematic process helped each participant achieve an illuminated and relatively coherent perspective on assessment. Together, all participants shared assessment praxes in a manner they had not experienced before. It was this 'self'-building that aided the professional development process.

Tools and Techniques of an Action Research Leader

The activities in this study can best be understood by recalling that each participant looked, thought, and acted recursively throughout the process of this action research study to illuminate assessment praxes. Stringer (1996) further explains,

The 'look, think, act' routine is but one of a number of ways in which action research is envisaged. Kemmis and McTaggart (1988b), for instance, present action research in terms of a spiral of activity: plan, act, observe, and reflect. Different formulations of action research reflect the diverse ways in which the same set of activities may be described, even though the processes they delineate are very similar. There are, after all, many ways of cutting a cake. (p. 16)

These phases (looking, thinking, acting) within the routine were augmented by the use of a tape-recorder and journals, which further captured assessment observations, thoughts and actions and ensured satisfactory triangulation. It is standard practice to tape-record sessions to produce transcripts that may be further examined by each participant. This practice enhances and promotes reflection. It is through these transcripts and journal entries that participants enter into dialogue around what may be opposing value positions. These dialectic events are expected and encouraged, and the tone of these discussions is sincere, honest, and centred on mutual respect for one-another. Thus, participants learn by communicating and personal reflection (Newman, 1991). As learning and transformation take place, 'spiralling' (Carr & Kemmis, 1986), (looking, acting, thinking recursively), a feature of action research, can produce a great deal of data. These data are looked at, acted upon, and often lead to change (Stinger, 1996).

Journals were used to achieve two outcomes: first, to communicate and document thoughts about action research, and second to preserve the thoughts of teachers reflecting on their educational assessment practices. In addition, a third aspect involved my reflections on the process and results. It can be asserted that the action research cycle was going on at two levels. First, teacher-participants looking, thinking, and examining their assessment praxes. Second, my own recursive examination of leadership activities related to my action research project. The common ground was the context, relating to the context of all participants, and the focus, assessment. The first level of action research involved the teachers looking at their current assessment praxes, thinking about the rationale for these actions and for alternatives generated in group discussion, and examining their effect in the classroom. The second level of action research, 'looking ' involved the gathering of data, which included contextual descriptions; 'thinking ' included exploring and analyzing what was happening in the research site(s); 'acting ' comprised the thesis (report), its implementation (usage) and evaluation (recommendations).

Analysis of data collected through reflection was in itself a process. The reflection process, carried out by all participants, was the analysis, which led to theorizing and the transformation of understandings of assessment praxes. (Stinger, 1996) Within the transcripts and journal notes, evidence that supported changes in assessment thoughts and practice was identified and described. Winter (1996) explains that "action research is seen as a way of investigating professional experience which links practice and the analysis of practice into a single, continuously developing sequence" (p. 13). Thus, the collection of data and its analysis were not separate acts; they occurred simultaneously. Some early action researchers (Corey, 1949; Schön, 1987) have treated the act of data collection and analysis as separate entities. Barnsley and Ellis (1987) suggest an acceptable contrast in method as they explain: "data analysis can begin while the research is in progress as well as after the data have been gathered" (Part V — p. 24).

As the data were mounting, I began to skim the collection and to commence the task of reflecting on what I had sensed. Further reflection brought to mind key concepts and words that supported these concepts. I use the word 'concept' to describe something that, to my mind, is unambiguous. The key concepts were used to assemble a matrix. I believed that the conception of data analysis articulated by Sagor (1992) suited me best:

Data analysis can be most simply described as a process of sifting, sorting, discarding, and cataloguing in an attempt to answer two basic questions: What are the important themes in this data? and (2) how much data support each of these themes? (p. 48)

My assessment themes became key terms and were used on the horizontal axis of a matrix I designed. These key terms included: What, Why, Who, How, Time, Isolation, and Views. The 'What' meant: What do you assess? The 'Why' meant: Why do you assess? The 'Who' meant: Who completes or develops the assessment? The 'How' meant: How do you assess? The 'Time' indicated that some mention or inference was made to time as a constraining feature of assessment praxes. 'Isolation' indicated that some mention or inference was made to teacher isolation as a feature of assessment praxes. The 'Views' term indicated that a view had been expressed repeatedly and strongly. 

On the vertical axis, I had sources of data (group discussion, one-to-one discussion, journal, classroom visit, informal communications, and documentation). Each key concept was given a colour code. As the data were skimmed, sifted, and sorted and a linkage to the key concept was found, the data were highlighted in the corresponding colour. As well, in each box of the matrix, co-ordinates were noted, such as the date and page number. So, if I were looking for data concerning the 'what' (key concept — horizontal axis) of assessment praxes, I could go down the column to locate the source (group, 1:1, journal, document, visitation, informal note). Located in a specific matrix box would be the source's location by date and page number, thus enabling rapid location and recovery of the information.

Findings: A Leader’s View

Generally, it was discovered that within our action research study "conversation [could] lead action, follow action or be part of the action" (Feldman, 1999, p. 133). At times, this was confusing since I was looking for immediate overt changes(acting) in assessment praxes and instead found covert changes throughout our study. This situation appeared because change occurred mostly within the cognitive domain in the form of newly held opinions, beliefs, values, and perspectives that were somewhat distant from the ones noted earlier in our study. This meant that participants planned to make curricular changes but only when the time was right. For participants, they suggested that changes would best be made during the summer and implemented day one of the following school year rather than confuse students during a semester. Due to this situation, I was forced to conclude that each participant's current state of assessment praxis was quite traditional (form) in spite of our understanding that participants planned to change in the future. Assessment praxes were teacher-controlled and content-driven (subject-matter based), and used fixed testing events (unit quiz, unit lab, mid-term, final exam). When teaching, each participant acted as a transmitter of specialized information. The learner was encouraged to acquire a fixed body of knowledge in the same form as the teacher delivered it. Each teacher used a narrow source of materials (textbook, lab book) and followed a predetermined course of study (using dated guidelines) in order to realize exit criteria (final percentages). Exit criteria were realized primarily through paper and pencil modes of assessment with little actual performance-based assessments.

Participants viewed and addressed assessment largely as an afterthought. The planning (content coverage of text) and teaching aspects were seen as instruction issues that preceded any concern for assessment. It was strictly plan, teach, and assess, with little attempt to plan varied assessments ahead of the lesson. The domain assessed was primarily knowledge recall via short answer, fill-ins, and true/false and multiple-choice tasks, as is typical in most content-based programs. Participants used assessment as a consequential process that could either motivate students to behave or cause students to work more intensely to achieve desired expectations.

Other reasons for assessment (function) included the need to monitor student progress (counselling), as detailed in Pat's journal of January 11, 1998.

Some students say they understand but I think they are just saying this to protect their feelings and I know by their marks how much they understand. If someone is slipping I meet with him or her after school and talk about how they can improve. This is something you have to do with no other students around. Sometimes it works and other times I just don't know how to help them. (p. 43)

Also assessment helps to ascertain learning needs (special education), as Bob's journal entry suggests:

I have an OAC student, who is failing, not because he isn't a good student, it's because of his abilities in math. If you are weak in math it will show up in physics class at some point. He is getting extra help from a peer now. I set this up and he should be OK. (February 4, 1998, p. 22)

Assessment was used for grouping and/or selection (honour roll, extra study group). Often participants, in isolation, used random assessment as evaluative tools, to inform curricular change. Jan used assessment to check for understanding and indirectly to check to see if her methods were achieving the desired outcomes.

I like pencil and paper tests. For me, anyway, I feel it is the best way I can get a handle on whether the students understood the material or not. I like the factual tests, I guess, but yet I try to instil some practical applications so that it is not just rote memory. That way it will simply prove that they have truly understood the material and not just memorized words on a piece of paper. (October 8, 1997, p.1)

Assessment provided feedback for students, parents, and the educational system (reports cards). It was argued that assessment prepared students for life (ability to accept criticism) after high school. For instance, Bob was preparing students for university by assessing in the same manner as a university:

Bob — Exactly, so I mean, I know in university there's a weekly quiz, lab, assignments and they're going to have tests of the format that I'm using. So, I mean, I don't want to stray too much because I want to give them as good a preparation as possible. (October 15, 1997, p. 4)

Assessment, it was claimed, helped maintain standards and assisted in making comparative analyses of students and classes. Assessment was largely traditional at the onset of the action research, due to a lack of time to do otherwise, isolation and/or the deliberate pursuit of individualism (self-reliance). Reasons for this conservatism could also be found in the low levels of participant assessment literacy (awareness of current forms/usage) and professional development at either the pre-service or in-service stages.

Success via Action Research Leadership 

The apparent ‘success’ of this study can be viewed on several levels. On one level, our research group worked together for the entire duration of the project with no person dropping out. This was an outcome towards which I worked. Our group maintained a systematic and strategic schedule of interviews (one-to-one and group) and was able to produce useful journals to help support the claims made. Each participant was forthcoming in discussions and was eager to share classroom documents (tests, exams, checklists). Hence, from a project standpoint, our study unfolded as imagined (planned), and thus it was successfully completed on this level.

Second, I witnessed and read about personal development, a key feature of professional development, as teachers learned and generated new insights while remaining committed to learning. For instance, Jan explained in her journal:

I can see myself this summer thinking about assessment first. Last year I thought about planning and teaching, and assessment was an afterthought. Now I'll ask myself and others 'what am I assessing’ [target], what should it look like [form] and who should help me with it [function]. I would be more of a support to students instead of just someone who talks about what is in the textbook. My course would be more real and have a lot of problems that need different resources to solve. This summer is a good time to do this when my head is less crowded. (April 15, 1998, p. 50)

Jan was telling us that she would move from a content-based program to a more outcomes-based program, with varied assessments. In a sense, her action strategies suited her particular context. Jan was near the end of a stressful year and had received supportive professional help in the area of assessment. Cal also gave us some insight into his professional development as he wrote:

I now have a better understanding of the people I work with and now I know why some are so different. Pat is new. But I now know why her reactions to what has always been done here seem so unsupportive. She is unlike Bob and Jan who see it as I do — business as usual — another day at the office, but we are moving all the time. Each change I make feels good, as I share it with others in our group. I feel supported and I support in return. I wish we had more time for our [action research] project but with Bill 160 and less prep/more students we will be busier than ever — maybe I'll give up coaching and then I'll be assigned as a guidance person when the new program starts in 1999. (April 15, 1998, p. 40)

Cal's insights allow us to see how his initial understandings were changing. He suggests, near the end of our project, that his fellow participants are more familiar to him. He now appreciates the cause and effect of participant contributions. Cal's disclosures and observations brought clarity to our study and allowed him to vent his feelings. His journal entries provided perspective (wish for more time) and aid us as we improve our praxis. Our theory about Cal’s actions (give up coaching) is more informed as we hear Cal's voice. The process has been a learning experience as we reflected, acted, and supported one-another. Another participant, Bob, was well on his way to modifying his assessment praxes due to our discussions. He made many changes in attitude and opinion and pointed out that his beliefs had become stronger in the area of assessment due to our work together. Bob wrote:

I can see myself being a little less in the middle of each assessment. I would like to try more self- and peer-assessment and have science journals. I hope to have more labs and lab tests where they apply some of this theory. (April 17, 1998, p 49)

What he required now was those two months during the summer to prepare, as is the case with most teachers. This is because change during the school year is often confused by multi-layered distractions, activities, and responsibilities. In each case, Bob, Jan, and Cal provide insight as to their particular professional development.

The outcomes were realized due to a dedicated group of participants who were willing to follow the leadership provided, a supportive board of education, and an encouraging school administration. This shared support of stakeholders allowed me to lead from within. Indeed, "a shared inquiry could take advantage of different strengths brought by novices, experienced teachers, and teacher educators, and create opportunities to work toward common ends . . ." (Rosaen and Schram, 1997, p. 277). Our inquiry brought together a first-year teacher, three experienced teachers, and a veteran leader (myself). Our perspectives were different, as were our experiences. The contrasts seemed to produce, support, and nurture new insights. For instance, having a first-year teacher in our group seemed to enrich our experience. To have a person somewhat unaffected and new to the profession to question the theory and practice of secondary science education in the midst of experienced teachers creates a powerful stimulus. They often ask those very penetrating naive questions that make the rest of us sit up and say, "Yes, why do we do that?" In other words, what has become familiar to others is examined more carefully because of their presence.

For instance, Pat stated:

Assessment — Well we have two choices, either go back to what we were doing or come up with applications to replace past practices. (March 4, 1998, p.3)

Pat's straightforward approach was refreshing and to some extent a beacon for our group. She was eager to converse and change (to engage in action) and mentioned that "if someone would give her the tools she would run with it". Pat felt she needed to have someone else provide the assessment tools. Therefore, she felt she had something to gain by staying with our group (possible assessment tools).

Participants in general were able to construct new understandings and insights, which was really an outgrowth of the heterogeneous group. This growth was encouraged first by the board's actions to permit this study and then welcomed via my presentation at a science curriculum council at the board office. Similarly, at the school level, I was permitted entrance and each participant was then supported via acknowledgement at forthcoming staff meetings. In sum, our study was successful, in that it was completed as planned; it was successful because each of the participants professionalized their practice (generated theory, insight, and new knowledge); and our study successfully contributed to the development of each teacher’s assessment praxes.

Implications of this Study

Success within this research effort was threefold. Firstly, this study has, to some extent, shown that secondary science teachers can successfully fulfil action research commitments. Secondly, these commitments led to successful limited improvement and growth within resultant modes of assessment praxis and that more changes were planned for the following year. Third, participants have begun to understand how to act, reflect, and revise, all of which are essential to revitalize practice and develop professionally. We realized that critical reflection, a centrepiece of action research, is a useful tool for future inquiries involving individuals or groups of educators. Ultimately, by participating in action research, learning occurs, improvement is cultivated, and professionalism is enhanced. This study has demonstrated that it is possible to support and lead action research participants as they develop professionally.

References

Barnsley, J., & Ellis, D. (1987). Action research for women’s groups. Vancouver, BC: Press Gang Printers.

Carr, W., & Kemmis, S. (1986). Becoming critical: Education, knowledge and action research. London: Falmer Press.

Corey, S.M. (1949) Action research, fundamental research and educational practices. Teachers College Record, 50, 509-514.

Feldman, A. (1999). The role of conversation on collaborative action research. Educational Action Research, 7 (1), 125-144.

Guba, E. (1996). Foreword. In Stringer, E. T. (Ed.), Action research: A handbook for practioners. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Hopkins, D. (1993). A teacher's guide to classroom research (2nd ed.). Milton Keynes: Open University Press.

Kemmis, S. & McTaggart, R. (Eds.), (1988a). The action research planner. Geelong, Victoria: Deakin University Press.

Kemmis, S. & McTaggart, R. (Eds.). (1988b). The action research reader. Geelong, Victoria: Deakin University Press.

McCutcheon, G., & Jung, B. (1990). Alternative perspectives on action research. Theory into Practice, 29 (3), 144-151.

McTaggart, R. (1997). Participatory action research: International contexts and consequences. Albany, NY: State University of New York.

Newman, J. M. (1991). Interwoven conversations: Learning and teaching through critical reflection. Toronto: OISE Press.

Pedretti, E. G. (1996). Facilitating action research in science, technology and society (STS) Education: An experience in reflective practice. Educational Action Research, 4 (3), 307-327.

Rosaen, C., & Schram, P. (1997). Professional development for beginning teachers through practical inquiry. Educational Action Researcher. 5 (2), (pp. 30-46).

Rudduck, J. (1991). Innovation and change. Toronto: OISE Press.

Sagor, R. (1992). How to conduct collaborative action research. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development

Schön, D. (1987). Educating the reflective practitioner. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Simons, H. (1989). Ethics of case study in educational research and evaluation. In Burgess, R.G. (Ed.). The ethics of educational research. New York: Falmer Press. (pp. 114-138).

Stringer, E. T. (1996). Action research: A handbook for practitioners. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Wideen, M., Mayer-Smith, J., & Moon, B. (1998). A critical analysis of the research on learning to teach: Making the case for an ecological perspective on inquiry. Review of Educational Research, 68 (2), 130-178.

Winter, R. (1996). Some principles and procedures for the conduct of action research. In Zuber-Skerritt, O. (Ed.) Action research for change and development. Aldershot: Gower-Avebury.

Zuber-Skerritt, O. (Ed.). (1996). New directions in action research. London: Falmer Press.

 

---

Author Notes

Dr. Thomas G. Ryan (OISE/UT) is an Assistant Professor of Education at the University of Lethbridge in Lethbridge, Alberta, Canada. His teaching areas are assessment, evaluation, research methods, and curriculum and instruction (Science and Physical Education). Previously, he was an Ontario secondary school teacher with the Ontario Secondary School Teachers’ Federation (OSSTF) and has been a teacher with the Ontario English Catholic Teachers’ Federation (OECTA). Thomas has also taught at the elementary level with the Elementary Teachers’ Federation of Ontario and served on several Ontario provincial committees, while presenting, publishing, and completing action research in the area of teacher development.

Dr. Thomas G. Ryan
University of Lethbridge
4401 University Drive
Lethbridge, Alberta.
T1K 3M4
Voice: 1 403 329 2450
Email: thomas.ryan@uleth.ca