Eera 2005 paper on_par

E. ALANA JAMES, ED.D.HTTP://WWW.AR4EVERYTHING.COM

HTTP://WWW.EALANAJAMES.COM

A STUDY ANALYSING THE EFFICACY OF PARTICIPATORY ACTION RESEARCH (PAR) AS

PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT WITH WHICH

TO ADVANCE ISSUES OF EDUCATIONAL

DISADVANTAGE

PURPOSE

• To overview the topic of homelessness and high mobility in the US

• To research the use of PAR methodology to:• Motivate• Involve and Engage

CONTEXT AND BACKGROUND IN THE UNITED STATES

1. Homeless (H) children may periodically live out of their parents car or sleep on friend’s couches – there are approximately 1.5 million homeless children in the United States.

2. Highly mobile (HM or transient) children frequently attend 2 or more schools each school year and have been shown to be at high risk for dropping out (leaving early). A recent study of homeless street youth showed that some of them had attended as many as 19 schools during their childhood.

THESE STUDENTS IMPACT EVERYONE’S EDUCATION

1. Because schools in the US are not on the same curricular schedule, moving from school to school is like surfing a variety of waves of educational strategy – these students frequently end up years behind their peers in understanding and literacy.

2. Studies have shown that in urban areas any given cohort of students may change more than 50 % of their population every five years.

50% OF THE POPULATION IN THE U.S. HAS MOVED IN THE LAST FIVE

YEARS

Yet educational practice has not changed to meet this challenge and pre-service preparation continues to prepare teachers as though they will be able to practice their classroom management strategies in a stable school environment.

THIS STUDY ADDRESSED WHETHER THE CYCLE OF PAR, WHEN USED AS A PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT PROCESS, WOULD

AID EDUCATORS IN OVERCOMING THESE CHALLENGES.

THE PARTICIPATORY GROUP

• Seventeen educators – 9 administrators• 1 homeless shelter, 1 charter high school (separate from school district but attached to it with special focus), 2 middle schools (grades 6-8), 1 multi level school (grades K-12) and 4 elementary schools (grades PK-5)

• Schools that were in: rural (1) , small towns (3), suburban areas (3), urban (3)• Rural = 120 students in 13 grades - population

less than 1,000• Small town = 75,000 people or less• Urban population = 1.5 - 3 million• Suburban = industrial or residential community

clustered next to urban population

WHAT DID THEY DO?• Met every two months as a group to discuss

their findings and to help each other with their projects (for which they received a stipend (or bursary)

• Interviewed parents and families• Researched school services• Surveyed students about the culture of the

school and worked to make it more welcoming and safe

• Treated homeless and transient students differently – more welcoming and concerned

• Learned a great deal about the influence of life context on an educational situation

WHAT DID THEY LEARN?• They learned that no matter what services were

offered it was unlikely that these families would stabilize in one school

• They learned that H&HM students need a different kind of security in the classroom (one place with their stuff around them)

• Participants learned that few of their colleagues knew that H&HM students existed or that they had legal protections available to them

HOW DID THIS STUDY MEASURE THEIR WORK?

• Used variables derived from the research of Greenwood and Levin (PAR as a method to engage with social issues),

• Zuber Skerritt (PAR as professional development), and

• Paolo Friere (the importance of participatory groups)

• Implemented a primarily qualitative mixed methods design

DATA COLLECTED

• Reflective memos collected monthly• Survey on engagement • In depth interviews – pre and post • Focus groups, administrators * and teachers • Their final reports • Email correspondence

Results Regarding Engagement

After six months• 82% had demonstrated engagement through

action. • 70.6% engaged in issues pertaining to

welcoming school culture• 70.6% also engaged in developing flexible

instructional strategies but with fewer examples • 52.9% with increasing access to educational

services

WHAT DID THIS STUDY SHOW ABOUT PAR AS METHOD TO INCREASE ENGAGEMENT

WITH DIFFICULT ISSUES?

• Participants became involved in advocacy for students around specific life issues

• They engaged in changing the face of education from the point of view of these children

• PAR methodology created the holding environment necessary to allow them to engage in these issues without being uncomfortable

WHAT DID THIS STUDY SHOW ABOUT PAR AS PROFESSIONAL

DEVELOPMENT?1. Framework for research and

action that enhanced participant’s capacity to address the issues they studied.

2. Process of reviewing data and theory with other educators to plan action = a feeling of their own expertise.

3. Difficult challenges in personal research = pride in their results.

4. Healthy dissatisfaction with the issue = The greatest increase in capacity

WHAT PRACTICAL CHANGES RESULTED?

• Educators increased the access H&HM students had to services

• They worked at making their school cultures more welcoming and inclusive

• They increased the flexibility of their educational practice.

Tobey’s story illustrating the way in which PAR helped address the complexities

inherent in H&HM student populations– The Participatory Group

When I presented my goal of helping highly mobile and homeless students become more academically competent to my colleagues, they found it to be too broad. They helped me narrow my focus challenging my assumptions about my students.

Tobey’s story, first cycle: The lives of the children

• It turned out that he wasn’t eating breakfast in the morning because the bus dropped him off at school just before the bell rang.

• Since students can’t learn if their basic needs are not being met, how can I ensure that my students’ basic needs are being met?”

Tobey’s story, second cycle: Welcoming classroom culture

I was led to unexpected paths. This time I questioned whether or not the classroom felt welcoming.

Tobey’s story, second cycle: Welcoming classroom culture

I was led to unexpected paths. This time I questioned whether or not the classroom felt welcoming.

Tobey’s story-Successful results

My school year is only three-quarters complete:

• Student achievement on the computerized reading assessment program in my class increased an average of – 200 lexiles for my stable student population – Over 300 lexiles for my homeless and

highly mobile student population– 75-100 lexiles is the expected average growth

PROLOGUE

• During the 2005-2006 school year 46 participants from four states (Colorado, Texas, Arkansas and Virginia) are participating in a similar study using web-based PAR methodology.

• They each are responsible for:• Completing an individual project • Participating in a local team of an administrator

(mostly principals), a teacher and a community member

• Participating in two online Communities of Practice (CoPs) using web based forums of communication.

WHERE CAN YOU FIND OUT MORE?

1. http://www.ar4everything.com2. James, E. A., Milenkiewicz, M., & Bucknam, A. (2008). Participatory

action research: Data driven decision making for educational leadership. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

3. http://www.ealanajames.com4. www.crsllc.org/resources/html = the pdf for the book done by the participants in the first study