Empowering Stakeholders to Make Meaningful Change for Literacy: Participatory Research to Foster Collective Action across Pre-Service and In-Service Teacher Development

• In Event: What works and what doesn’t: Professional development for teachers

Proposal

Movements and development programs to improve literacy and address learning inequalities in low and middle-income countries (LMICs) are often hampered by disjointed reforms, short-term interventions, and ‘solutions’ that are not locally rooted (Cassity, 2010; McChesney, 2022). This paper describes an approach to building momentum and capacity for collective action to improve literacy instruction in the Philippines by empowering local stakeholders to conduct participatory action research.

Context and Problem
For three years, researchers from an American university have partnered with two teacher education institutions (TEIs) in the Philippines, part of a broader program to improve primary education in the Philippines. We co-developed and piloted pre-service modules to prepare early-grade teachers to teach literacy. In our work, two challenges became salient.

First, greater cohesion was needed between pre-service preparation and in-service teacher development. A literature review on pre-service teacher education in LMICs found numerous examples of pre-service teacher education that did not align with the curriculum and teaching-learning materials at local schools (Zuilkowski et al., 2021). The needs related to teacher development are shared across pre-service and in-service sectors. Addressing them will require “joined-up responses to joined-up problems” (Milbourne et al., 2010, p. 20).

Secondly, a lack of contextualized research responding to local problems limits possibilities for evidence-based decision-making. Educators in the Philippines express a commitment to research-informed practice but lack high-quality, contextually-relevant research that addresses local literacy concerns, a reflection of the broader imbalance in knowledge production and publication opportunities in the global North and South (Collyer, 2018; McChesney, 2022; Share, 2008).

Participatory Action Research Activity
We conceived the Participatory Action Research Professional Development activity (PAR activity) to address the disconnect between pre-service and in-service and the need for more contextually relevant literacy research. PAR is well-suited to address both concerns as it is epistemologically motivated by an interest in knowledge of the local, marked by collaborative, inclusive, and democratic decision-making, and promotes collective responses to local challenges and inequalities (Dancis et al., 2023; Johnson et al., 2023; Scher et al., 2023).

In the PAR activity, 32 participants from the TEIs and the Department of Education (DepEd) worked together in eight geographically-based “research circles” to identify literacy issues affecting teacher development. Four mentor-researchers from the American university provided explicit instruction and carefully sequenced capacity-building on PAR during three in-person workshops over five months. Mentor-researchers coached and collaborated virtually with the research circles at each stage in the research process. The PAR activity engaged participants in successive action-reflection cycles to develop critical reflexivity (Freire, 1970) and cultivate experiential learning through cooperative problem-solving to develop “useful knowledge” about both research and literacy (Dewey, 1916; Innes et al., 2016).

Data and Methods
We collected data throughout the PAR activity to understand the experiences of the participants and explore PAR’s potential to construct locally relevant knowledge and nurture collaborative relationships across agencies. We conducted pre and post-tests on knowledge, skills, and attitudes related to research which were analyzed using one-sample paired t-tests. We also gathered qualitative data from participants using surveys, whole group discussions, research artifacts, and a focus group discussion, which were analyzed using a thematic analysis approach.

Preliminary Findings and Discussion
The analysis is ongoing, but preliminary findings suggest the PAR activity increased capacity for conducting research, measured by growth between the pre and post-test. Participants showed statistically significant growth in research knowledge and skills. Their knowledge and skills grew most in research design, data analysis, data management, and interpretation of findings. Areas with the least growth were attitudes, participatory approaches, and ethics, which points to challenges inherent in the limited timespan of the activity and the complexities of grounding ethical considerations in research principles and local value systems.

Research circles conducted qualitative and mixed-methods exploratory projects focused on literacy instruction, including differentiating instruction, multilingual oral language development, reading comprehension, and literacy leadership. Their research encompassed a range of actors: student teachers, cooperating teachers, beginning teachers, master teachers, and school heads. Their findings revealed aspects of stakeholders’ literacy-related understanding, practices, and beliefs which will shape their plans for localized interventions to improve classroom practices.

Findings suggested three ways the PAR activity could further expand locally relevant, contextualized knowledge. First, participants observed that they currently collect extensive data to fulfill their agencies’ reporting and research requirements but often fail to analyze data critically or systematically, stopping short of asking consequential “why” questions. Secondly, they realized that research should be directly linked to action and appropriately disseminated to incite change. Finally, many participants’ attitudes toward qualitative research shifted due to the PAR activity. They acknowledged its potential to construct more “meaningful stories” about what is happening in education, currently missing from the reams of quantitative data they collect.

Participants reflected on how relationships across institutions (DepEd and TEIs) had transformed during their collaboration, describing a shift from “blam[ing] each other” toward shared ownership and an increased sense of agency and collective responsibility for building a knowledgeable, effective teacher workforce. As they cultivated mutual understanding and built a unified conceptualization of local problems through research, they coalesced around a shared vision for the future, a “collective imagining” (Anderson et al., 2015). They believe that their strengthened relationships and joint understanding of problems will provide a platform to enact meaningful change together.

Our paper will also detail the challenges and lessons learned from this experience that could inform efforts to build capacity for PAR among educators in LMICs and foster collective action among stakeholders differently positioned within the education system. Many things remain uncertain, including the sustainability of these newly formed relationships, the shape their interventions will take, and the outcomes of changes they envision. Regardless, this approach holds promise for building coalitions and links across institutional boundaries while generating contextualized, locally relevant knowledge that can inform collective movements for progressive change.

Authors

• Kate Schell, Florida State University

• Ana H Marty, FLORIDA STATE UNIVERSITY

• Rachel Keune Mincey, Florida State University

• Marion Fesmire, Florida State University