Sagor, R. (1992). How to conduct collaborative action research. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development. Pp. 79. ISBN: 0-87120-201-8.

The books first chapter explains the rationale for collaborative action research (CAR). The author, Richard Sagar, states that CAR has a sweeping goal, the restructuring of the teaching profession and the changing of the culture of teaching. Sagar is concerned that teaching suffers in comparison with other service professions in a number of regards. One, teachers are isolated from their colleagues. Two, the knowledge base on how to teach is generated not by teachers but by researchers from outside the classroom. Three, whereas in other service professions, the people who do the work are also the ones doing the assessment, the work of teachers is assessed by non-teachers. Summing up, Sagar states, "As long as teaching remains a profession where isolation is the norm, where the knowledge that informs practice comes from outside the classroom, and where the quality control officers are removed from the classroom, teaching will be more like a blue-collar job than an intellectual professional pursuit" (p. 5).

Chapter 2 attempts to define CAR by looking at the three words that make up the term. By action, Sagar means teachers doing something to better their own situations. This contrasts with outside researchers doing for teachers. By research, Sagar refers to 'disciplined inquiry'. Many books and articles have discussed action research, and many of these authors have advocated that it be done collaboratively. Sagar does not say all action research must be done by groups. His point is that adding a collaborative element helps to change the culture of teaching so as to create "an active community of professionals" (p. 10). Sagar believes that, "we all gain more, learn more, and are more professionally satisfied when we work with others" (p.26). Teachers need no special skills to join a CAR group, only a sincere desire to improve education.

Most of the rest of the book is composed of one chapter each on a 5-step process for CAR. The initial step in Problem Formulation is which the researchers reflect on their teaching situations, select one specific area on which to focus their research, and think deeply about the various aspects of that area and its context. Key factors in selecting a research area are that it relate to education, that it be within the teachers' sphere of influence, and that the area matters deeply to the teachers involved in the research. Sagar presents a number of interview and discussion techniques and graphic organizers that teachers can use formulate and focus the problem they will be investigating. As this will be collaborative research, another part of this preparatory stage of the study involves each of the members of the CAR group making clear the extent and kind of their involvement in the project.

These excerpts from the book (pp. 17, 18, 20, 22) give more details about what Sagar suggests.

Step 1. Brainstorm all the relevant factors, variables, and contexts. The workshop leader should supply each team with a large sheet of paper (minimum 2’ x 3’), a pad of Post-it notes, pencils, and colored felt-tip markers. [To save trees, rough paper can be cut into pieces and used instead of Post-its.] Then team members should be asked to list every relevant theme, idea, issue, factor, or variable that arose during their reflective interviews, their analytic discourses, or other discussions of the problem area. Each factor should be written on a separate Post-it note. For example, if the team had been discussing the drop in student self-esteem, the factors listed might be: grading practices, tracking, retention, parental support, teachers’ collaborative action research, peer pressure, drug abuse, cooperative classrooms, competitive classrooms, school activities, socioeconomic status, and cliques.

Step 2. Arrange relevant factors, variables, and contexts in relational order. Once the team members have brainstormed and written all of the issues or factors they believe pertain to the problem, they gather around the paper and as a group attempt to arrange the issues on the Post-it notes in a logical pattern. As the team begins trying to illustrate their common understandings of the relationships between factors, the shortcomings of a verbal process often become apparent, and debates invariably ensue. For example, one person might say that he thinks school activities enhance students’ self-esteem, while another person asserts the contrary, arguing that only students with high self-esteem participate in school activities. Suddenly, a group of people that seemed to be of one mind begins to realize that individual team members are seeing the issue in somewhat different ways.

Once the team members have achieved some degree of consensus on the relationships between the issues, it’s time to take out the colored markers and, using lines, arrows, and symbols, draw the relationships. In the third step of the graphic representation, teachers analyze their picture with a critical eye and ask themselves, “Are we sure about this?” More specifically, they ask:

·        Are the relationships between the variables or factors what we think they are?

·        Are there other variables or issues that should be considered?

·        Are we forgetting something?

Surfacing the research questions. Those relationships that the team concluded were meaningful, yet still need to be verified, become the focus of the research project. It is helpful to translate these relationships into questions. For example, the team might want to know:

·        What student attributes to contribute to student success with spelling?

·        What contributes to making a parent conference worthwhile?

·        Do all children benefit equally from cooperative learning in math?

A further part of this preliminary stage is described on pages 25-27. Here are excerpts beginning with questions about the researchers’ commitment to the project.

1. Is our research tied to what I have to do or want to do? If the answer is no, change topics. As a busy teacher, you should commit to work only on what you consider a priority.

2.      Is our research focused? In other words, are you clear on what this investigation is about and why it’s being conducted? If not, stop until you get that clarity. You don’t want to wander aimlessly.

3.      How involved do you want to be in this research project? You need to be prepared to tell your partners what they can and cannot expect from you as the project proceeds.

4.      What will be the basis for team sharing? Earlier in this book, we discussed the value of collaborative professional work. We all gain more, and learn more and are more professionally satisfied when we work with others. Nevertheless, the collaborative action research process described in this book is based on each professional working on personal priorities. What do you do when these two principles appear to be in conflict? The answer lies in the nature of your team and the issues the members want to investigate. Assume, for example, that you have joined a team of teachers who share some particular interest. For some reason, however, you find you don’t enjoy working with the team. In this case, you would probably have trouble finding a basis for sharing, and should instead pursue individual action research or join another collegial group whose members seem to truly enjoy working together. People who enjoy working together can usually find some basis for sharing, though the level of sharing may be low or high, as shown on the following continuum.

1                                  2                                  3

            Shared Process             Shared Focus              Shared Focus

             Different Focus             Different Aspects

A team that finds itself at point 3 on the continuum is one where everyone is interested in the same issues and has decided to pursue their common interests by engaging in a single action research project. Examples might include a team of English teachers examining the effects of peer editing on the quality of student writing, or a 4^th grade team investigating the effects of a multidisciplinary unit.

Another team might find itself at point 2. Here everyone is interested in the same general focus area, but each member finds that she has a passion for different aspects of that focus. An example could be the school in which all ten members of an action research team are interested in the multi-age grouping process being introduced at the school; however, each teacher is intrigued by a different aspect or issue related to multi-age grouping. Another example might be the middle school faculty that wants to investigate cooperative learning, although one member wants to investigate its effects on self-esteem while another wants to find out how it affects teacher preparation time and stress, and still another wants to see how it might affect students’ attainment of thinking skills. These teams would do well to conduct multiple projects and meet regularly to share what they are learning about their common interest areas.

Finally, it is possible that a team will find itself at point 1. Here everyone has caught the action research bug and is eager to pursue an inquiry, but all the focuses are idiosyncratic. Diverse focuses should not be cause for concern. Many such teams have constituted themselves as action research support groups that meet every two weeks simply to share what they have been learning. What these teams have in common is a commitment to the action research process, and what they receive from each other is procedural help, as well as the active listening of caring and concerned peers.

The next stage in the CAR process is the data collection, what Sagar calls the heart of CAR. He states that "The guiding principle … is that the information collected should be compelling enough to convince any skeptic" (p. 28). This is no easy task. Three issues to consider in designing the research are generalizability, validity, and reliability. Unlike in outsider researcher, with CAR, no claim is made that the research finding are relevant to contexts other than the context in which the data were collected. Instead, this context is explained in sufficient detail so that people reading or hearing about the research can decide for themselves on its relevance to their own context. Validity refers to whether the CAR group can legitimately claim they have measured what they set out to investigate, and reliability relates to whether the measuring was done accurately.

CAR can make use of a wide variety of data sources, and Sagar urges that the more sources we use, the more faith we can have in our findings. One data source that some people made not be familiar with is shadowing (pp. 34-35).

Shadowing is a tool that can help us see people and circumstances as they really are. It gives us an opportunity to experience a situation in a most naturalistic manner. With school-based action research, the shadowing process involves following selected students or teachers for a specified period of time (generally a day) to collect a picture of a typical day in their life. At a high school where I worked, we conducted such self-examinations annually. Twelve teachers shadowed twelve students (three from each grade level, including a high-, middle-, and low-achieving student from each grade) for one day each. At the end of the twelve-day shadowing period, the students and heir shadows met to compare notes. Ultimately, the twenty-four participants (shadows and shadowees) met with the entire faculty to discuss similarities and differences in the way students of different ages and performance levels experienced our school.

Using multiple sources is referred to as triangulation, regardless of whether the number of sources is three or not. Benefits of triangulation include (p. 45):

·        It compensates for the imperfections of data-gathering instruments.

·        When multiple measures yield the same results, it can increase confidence in the results.

·        When multiple measures fall to yield the same results, it can raise important follow-up questions.

A matrix, such as the one below, can be used to capture a complete picture of the data-collection plan. First, each research question is listed. Then, the data collection sources for that question are placed in the table.

Data Collection Plan

Sagar also advises that in designing a study, as well as at other stages of the CAR process, a critical friend can be very useful. This is a person from outside the teaching context who provides another perspective to assist, but not to take over, the research effort.

Criteria for choosing a critical friend are (p. 47):

·        The critical friend will be chosen based on the needs and desires of the project participants.

·        The critical friend will not have any stake in the problem being addressed or in the outcome of the project unless such ownership is granted by the participants.

·        The critical friend is a positive friend whose primary agenda is to assist in moving the project toward success.

·        The critical friend may have a personal agenda complementary to the project agenda. The critical friend will share with the participants his or her motives or intents at the time of the first interaction.

·        The critical friend is a visitor and participates only at the continued invitation of the project participants.

·        The critical friend will respond and act honestly at every juncture.

·        It is the obligation of the critical friend to declare any conflict of interest or conflict of values with the project focus or methods.

·        The critical friend will assume that the project’s interactions, work, and findings are confidential unless the project directs otherwise.

The participants are expected to assist the critical friend by fully informing them of all agendas prior to each consultation.

Data Analysis often poses difficulties, especially with data that are not easily reducible to numbers, such as data from open-ended interviews. Sagar provides several suggestions, including identifying themes that appear repeatedly in the data, considering how much data support each theme, using a matrix to help see which themes emerge from which data sources, using quotes from participants in the study to represent the themes that emerged from the data, and forming new conclusions about the research question based on the data. The key lies in "looking systematically at all the data collected to see what trends or patterns emerge and what conclusions, if any, can be drawn"(p. 11). However, even if a theme does not come up frequently, the research team may still feel that it is noteworthy.

A data matrix, such as the one below, can be a useful data analysis tool because it can show which themes came from which sources.

Data Matrix for CAR Study of School Success

CAR does not end with the Data Analysis stage. To accomplish the goal of CAR to restructure the teaching profession, the research must be shared with other teachers and with other stakeholders in education. Such sharing helps break the isolation of teachers by "breaking the code of silence and making legitimate the regular discussion of classroom practice" (p. 58). Sharing makes an addition to the knowledge base of teaching, an addition that comes from teachers rather than from those outside the classroom. Further, reporting CAR enables teachers to take more control over the assessment of teaching.

Parts of a CAR report are:

1. The introduction fully explains the context. "The purpose of the report is simply to invite our colleagues to look over our shoulders as we work."

2. The Methodology section answers the questions, “What did you do and how did you do it?”

3. The Results section answers the question, “What did you find? This includes the data and the data analysis”.

4. Finally, the Action Plan tells what will be done based on the results.

Sagar suggests that in reporting the results of CAR teachers can go beyond traditional means, such as reading papers at conferences. Other means of reporting he mentions include video, photographs, and audiotapes. Sagar urges that in order to enhance the status of the teaching profession, the reporting of CAR, whether oral or written, should be done in settings that engender respect, e.g., oral presentations at first-class hotels and written reports on high quality paper.

Once the research has been reported, action needs to be taken based on the results. Sagar warns that school change is not easy, and he suggests a number of strategies for overcoming resistance to change. The book concludes with the author explaining that a number of useful approaches to CAR exist, and that he has emphasized an approach that focuses on altering the professional culture in schools so that it becomes a culture which "values empowerment, initiative, and experimentation" (p. 75). Sagar acknowledges that he has not included reference to the professional literature, such as books and journals on education, as part of the approach described in this book. While he believes this literature offers valuable insights, his experience tells him that especially for first-time CAR practitioners may find it a daunting task to add trips to the library to their research schedule.

To conclude, Sagar reminds us that:

The premise of action research is that the best practice continues to evolve and differs from context to context. This is also the case with the practice of collaborative action research. Just as we want our teaching to be of the highest quality, we should want no less of our research. As you use the collaborative action research process, you will be experimenting and discovering new and better methods of practice. … Have a great Journey!

While I think the book is valuable, I have a few quibbles. First, the term “Problem Formulation” seems to exclude some topics. I prefer a broader conceptualisation in which action research focuses on problems, issues, and questions. Second, the research process that the book depicts is too fixed. In my experience, questions, issues, and problems emerge as we conduct our research no matter how carefully we have considered our topic area before embarking on the research. The researchers may then come to decide that these emerging questions, issues, and problems should be the new focus of the research. Finally, I am among those who Sagar mentions who believe that a review of the literature on a topic is part of laying the groundwork for the study. Such a literature review should include theories and principles related to the topic. If the members are the CAR team are too busy to do this, perhaps the critical friend can help. Theory and principles help us see the bigger picture. As Kurt Lewin said, “There is nothing as practical as a good theory”.