Commentary on the Action Research Laboratory: A U.S. School-Based Action Research Program

• In Event: International Action Research: Sharing Public Scholarship in Diverse Global Educational Contexts

Abstract

Objective
This recollection on the Action Research Laboratory (ARL) at Highland Park High School (USA) offers ideas, guidance, and hope to others recognizing the power and inspiration that action research can generate in teacher growth, student achievement, and school improvement.

The ARL was founded in 1995 “to provide teachers the means and encouragement to make substantive changes in their classroom practices that would increase student learning” (Senese, 2001, p. 307) in “a professional development program in which teams of teachers conduct[ed] collaborative action research” (Senese, 1998, p. 33). As the ARL nears the 20th anniversary of its founding, this paper revisits and updates the history in the hope that it might be useful to those working in schools today.

Theoretical perspectives
The ARL integrates principles of constructivism and the new sciences into the practice of collaborative action research to demonstrate how a small group of committed teachers can be the catalyst for school change. The combination of theories of self-organization (Wheatley & Kellner-Rogers, 1996; Senge, Ross, Smith, & Roberts, 1994), job embedded professional development (Caine & Caine, 1997), and constructivism (Brooks & Brooks, 1993; Lambert, Walker, Zimmerman, & Cooper, 1998) propels the ARL, makes it adaptable to changing situations, and helps it to sustain change efforts.

Mode of inquiry
The analysis of documentation about the ARL informed the recollection and offered new perspectives. Documents included published papers, articles, and book chapters; participant interviews; student and parent surveys; and historical records that helped to determine the elements that make the ARL work.

Results
The features that contribute to the success of the ARL include teachers from diverse disciplines having a sustained focus, research conducted in classes for average students, personal choice and professional time for participants, and establishing shared program operation goals. These features result in meaningful professional exchanges, varied perspectives, consequential action research, public sharing of results, expansion and extension of teacher networks, teacher decision-making authority that increases agency, and classroom-embedded professional learning.

Significance
From experience with the Action Research Laboratory and originating from this recollection, the author derived axioms that resulted from and guided his work.

Works Cited
Brooks, J. G. & Brooks, M. G. (1993). The case for constructivist classrooms. Alexandria, VA: ASCD.
Caine, R.N., & Caine, G. (1997). Education on the edge of possibility. Alexandria, VA: ASCD..
Lambert, L. (1998). Building leadership capacity in schools. Alexandria VA: ASCD.
Senese, J. C. (1998). Action! The Journal of Staff Development, (19)3, 33-37.
Senese, J. C. (2001). The Action Research Laboratory as a vehicle for school change. In G. Burnaford, J. Fischer, & D. Hobson (Eds.), Teachers doing research (pp. 307-325). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Senge, P. M., Ross, R., Smith, B., & Roberts, C. (1994). The fifth discipline fieldbook. New York: Currency Doubleday.
Stringer, E. T. (2014). Action research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc.
Wheatley, M. J. & Kellner-Rogers, M. (1996). A simpler way. San Francisco, CA: Berrett-Koehler Publishers, Inc.

Author

• Joseph C. Senese, Northwestern University