Carn Paper On Participatory action research

This presentation reports on findings of a multi year project using participatory action research to improve education for homeless students

2. A mixed methodological study of
whether and in what ways PAR is
efficacious for educators
developing new practices for
homeless or transient students in
the United States
E. Alana James, Ed.D.
Jones International University
Centre for Research Strategies

3. Purpose
The purpose of this study was to evaluate the efficacy of
PAR methodology:
2. As a tool to engage both administrators and
teachers
3.As a process of professional development through
which to address issues of educational disadvantage
The discussion will conclude by asking whether and to
what extent educators in the study improved their
educational practice for homeless and highly mobile
students in the United States?

4. Context and Background
1.Homeless (H) children may periodically live out of
their parent’s car or sleep on a friend’s couch
(sofa) – there are approximately 1.5 million
homeless children in the United States. A recent
study of homeless street youth showed that some
had attended as many as 19 schools .
2.Highly mobile (HM) or transient children attend
two or more schools each school year and have
been shown to be at high risk for dropping out
(leaving early). There is no way
to measure the size of this population.

5. All students are affected
1.Because schools in the US are not on the
same curricular schedule, moving from
school to school is like surfing waves of
educational strategy – these students
frequently end up years behind their peers
in literacy and comprehension (Rumberger 2003).
2.Studies have shown that in urban areas
any given cohort of students may change
more than 50 % of their population every
five years (Kerbow, 2003).

6. 50% of the US 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 practise their
classroom management strategies in a
stable school environment.

7. Would the PAR process work?

8. The Participatory Group

9. •Seventeen educators – 9 administrators
Representing:
•1 homeless shelter,
•1 charter high school (ages 14-18)
•2 middle schools (ages 11-13),
•1 multi level school (grades 4 - 19)
•4 elementary schools (ages 4- 10)
Participants:

10. Their context:
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

11. Measurement:
Implemented a primarily qualitative mixed methods
design
Used variables derived from the research:
•Greenwood and Levin (AR as a method to
engage with social issues),
•Zuber Skerritt (AR as professional
development),
•Paolo Friere (qualitites of participatory and
emancipatory groups)
Open and selectively coded data
•Verified outcomes through triangulation with final
administrator and teacher focus groups

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

13. Results: PAR and Engagement
Started the process overwhelmed,
frequently admitting that if not for the
stipend “they would not have finished”
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

14. Results: 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

15. What practical changes resulted?
1.Educators increased the access H&HM
students had to services (8)
2.They worked at making their school cultures
more welcoming and inclusive (9)
3.They increased the flexibility of their
educational practice (2)

16. Access to Services – their research
•What services were H&HM involved in?
•Had services been offered?
•What prevented attendance?
•What could increase H&HM
attendance/participation in school?
•Were appropriate services offered soon
enough?
•What was the impact of those services?

17. Welcoming school culture
•Opened a parent welcoming centre (1)
•Developed a “lunch bunch” group so highly
mobile or transient students could make friends
and discuss their experience in school (2)
•Researched how students were greeted and
the ways in which they learned about the
school (2)
•Interviewed parents enrolling students mid year
(3)
•Transmitted more information to
teachers (5)

18. Flexible Instructional Strategies
Flexible instructional strategies are something
that everybody strives for all kids, you have to
differentiate, it is not an easy thing to do.
•Teacher changed poetry in her reading
curriculum to include poems about
homelessness. Motivation to memorize the
poems soared.
•At the end of the school year her homeless
students had excelled in this curricula four
times the expected growth.

19. Conclusion
PAR methodology created the holding
environment necessary to allow them to
engage in these issues without being
uncomfortable
(Heifetz, 2000)

20. Did they improve educational practice?
They say their practice was much improved:
–Poised to welcome new students
–Understand and are able to address situations that
involve meeting a student’s primary needs such as
food, clothing and supplies
–Have increased empathy to student’s challenges
–Have implemented new practices

21. Lack of student level outcomes
•Only one study showed student level
outcomes- that of the teacher who increased
her reading scores an average of 300 lexiles for
her H&HM students on a curriculum known for
an average of 75 lexiles
•Recommendation to improve facilitation to
focus on the attainment of student level
outcomes

22. Epilogue
•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 for which they receive a
stipend of $1,000. Each participate in:
•A local team of an administrator (mostly principals), a teacher
and a community member
•Two online Communities of Practice (CoPs) using
web based forums of communication.

23. More information:
1.www.crsllc.org/resources/html
= the pdf for the book done by
the participants in the first study
2.www.wbpd.org is the URL for
the new project:
Username = wbpd &
Password = guest
[email protected]