Experiencing action evaluation's cyclic process

Educational Action Research

ISSN: 0965-0792 (Print) 1747-5074 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/reac20

Experiencing action evaluation’s cyclic process: partnering conflict, reflection, and action Andrea C. Burrows & Shelly Sheats Harkness To cite this article: Andrea C. Burrows & Shelly Sheats Harkness (2015): Experiencing action evaluation’s cyclic process: partnering conflict, reflection, and action, Educational Action Research, DOI: 10.1080/09650792.2015.1108211 To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09650792.2015.1108211

Published online: 10 Dec 2015.

Submit your article to this journal

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=reac20 Download by: [University of Wyoming Libraries]

Date: 11 December 2015, At: 09:05

Educational Action Research, 2015 http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09650792.2015.1108211

Experiencing action evaluation’s cyclic process: partnering conflict, reflection, and action Andrea C. Burrowsa and Shelly Sheats Harknessb Secondary Science Education, University of Wyoming, Laramie, WY, USA; bMathematics Education, University of Cincinnati, Cincinnati, OH, USA

Downloaded by [University of Wyoming Libraries] at 09:05 11 December 2015

a

ARTICLE HISTORY

ABSTRACT

In this article, the authors describe experiences in and offer suggestions from a course entitled ‘Educational Innovation for Excellence Through Action Research, Conflict Resolution, and Organizational Learning’ – an action evaluation (AE). The class was taught using the principles of action research and AE. The authors explore the impact that the course had on the their personal perceptions and classmates’ perceptions of AE, grapple with the criteria for what constituted a shared definition of ‘success’ in the course, and offer a critical lens for viewing educational evaluation as a means to continued selfreflection or reflexivity. The theoretical framework utilized is symbolic interactionism and critical pedagogy. The process of AE, including resonance, positive disruptions, reflexivity, and conflict resolution, is discussed within the authors’ narratives. Action evaluation is revealed as the complex process of joining sometimes apparently disjointed participants as unlikely partners to create change. This study helps to fill a gap of enriching action research with narratives, by exploring AE through reflection, and by creating discussion regarding critical pedagogy and social change. Implications for a wide audience include suggested conflict resolution strategies and examples of evaluation uses for instructors in numerous classes. Recommendations for AE implementation and strategies to promote social change – including core values of democratic participation, community empowerment, and social justice – are also presented.

Received 17 October 2014 Accepted 12 October 2015 KEYWORDS

Action research; action evaluation; conflict resolution; resonance; reflection; disruption

Introduction Imagine the first day of a college class. As is typical, students sit in their seats, eager to learn but, perhaps, more importantly (or more unfortunately?) to find out what is required of them. A few students arrive late. The instructor distributes the syllabus, and it does not display the usual table of assignments/papers/tests or include points or percentages or what a ‘good’ student has to do to earn an ‘A.’ Instead, it reads: If you complete all the work of this seminar to the best of your abilities you will be assured of a top grade. In fact, unless you are eager to work at that level (at your peak), this is not a good

CONTACT Andrea C. Burrows © 2015 Educational Action Research

[email protected]

2

A. C. Burrows and S. S. Harkness


class to take. Success will be defined, however, based on students’ own definitions of success, and on the shared definitions of success that the students and [instructor] will reach.

This article reflects what the authors experienced in a course about action evaluation (AE) entitled ‘Educational Innovation for Excellence Through Action Research, Conflict Resolution, and Organizational Learning.’ The instructor of the course attempted to help the students find places of ‘resonance’ with each other and let ‘positive disruptions’ guide the group through the process of learning and growing. The authors frame the discussion in this article around these two terms,‘resonance’ and ‘positive disruptions,’ as part of the action research process. The authors define resonance as‘a researcher’s posture of openness and receptivity toward potential meanings … [and] it serves as an important ontological and epistemological counterpoint to the postpositivist stance of objective analysis of data’(Given 2008, 791). For the authors, resonance is an area of connection where thoughts, words, or actions link one person with those of another person. Resonance can evoke feelings of shared experiences, emotions, or beliefs. The authors co-created the term positive disruptions to describe the personal view of struggles and reflection in order to understand AE and individual roles in the course. The disruptions or times of unease – such as the first day of class as described earlier – initially caused individual apprehension and agitation. The disruptions were not necessarily positive when the group first encountered them, but the authors came to view them as positive through reflection upon the experiences and learning in the course. Accordingly, the term positive disruption refers to the clear and constructive quality of disturbances that can interrupt any process and possibly offer future direction for the person experiencing them. With these two main concepts, this article fills a gap in the literature by answering a call regarding‘… reflection in the action research process, including its relationship with the tensions that arise while discussing purposes, processes, and outcomes, [which have] not been well explored’(Aas 2014, 441). Thus, the purpose of this article is to produce narratives that showcase resonance and positive disruptions and then extend the analysis to a sociopolitical critique, which addresses educational equities – here through evaluation – to promote change in communities. The authors begin by describing the methodology and theoretical framework of the study, methods and analysis, AE in general, the AE course itself, and then individual author narratives. The article explores the authors’ experiences throughout the process of learning AE by actually participating in the process of AE. Additionally, each author – in separate narratives – tells about places of resonance and positive disruptions, which occurred as a result of AE course experiences.

Methodology and theoretical framework This is an action research study that utilizes the theoretical framework of symbolic interactionism, which emphasizes the subjective meaning of human actions, and it helped the authors to conceive of and guide the work in the beginning of this project. Blumer (1969) described the starting points of this framework with three assertions: • Actions towards events are based on the meanings that humans make of the events. • Meanings of such events are derived from, or arise out of, the social interactions that one has with others. • The meanings are modified through a process of self-reflection merged with social interaction. ‘Symbolic interaction research studies human interaction and emphasizes the need to keep in mind that human interaction is not based solely on the way the external world “really” is’



3

(Willis 2007, 177) but on how humans interpret the world they live in and experience. Therefore, meaning is symbolic rather than concrete, shared rather than individualistic, and ever changing rather than static (Willis 2007). Accordingly, the use of symbolic interactionism was based on the following epistemological foundations of research rooted in this theory (Denzin 1995): local understanding is crucial; and the biographies and lived experiences of individuals are essential. In fact, because of these epistemological underpinnings, symbolic interactionism lends itself to narrative and reflection. Therefore, the findings are partially contained within stories of the authors’ experiences during the AE course and their meanings for each author. Connelly and Clandinin (1994) note that education is a process of learning to tell and retell stories. Sustained conversations in which researchers listen to responses to these stories allows for ‘added possibility’ in using them to ‘encourage more mindful retellings’ (1994, 150). Kajamaa (2012) merged action research, narrative, and intervention research, and the authors drew upon this framework to meld symbolic interactionism, narrative, and AE. Within this manuscript the authors explore the research questions: ‘How did the AE course impact the participants’ understanding of AE?’ and ‘How can lesson learned from AE impact educational change?’ With this theoretical groundwork established, after the project ended the authors viewed the collected data through a critical social lens where the task shifted to ‘explore and address the interconnections and tensions between system and lifeworld aspects of a setting as they are lived out in practice’ (Kemmis 2006, 101). Evaluation is an ideological concern, and thus the authors used the critical lens to create arguments regarding AE. Just as the authors in this article critique educational norms and express views to change evaluation practices, many current critical pedagogy authors urge researchers to judge educational practices with reflective assessment and cultural critique (del Carmen Salazar 2013; Giroux 2015; Gonzalez, Moll, and Amanti 2005; Katsarou 2014; Ladson-Billings 2014; Paris 2012; Sleeter 2012).

Methods and analysis The authors collected data in three ways: individual observations during AE (data for narrative creations); reflective journaling during the semester (data for narrative creations and patterns in general observations); and class member answers to open AE questions (class artifact data). The analysis for the observations and reflective journaling was the comparison of the narratives for themes and patterns. What did each author ‘see’ during the AE course, and therefore what impact did AE have on the authors? The artifacts were analyzed for theme and pattern comparison of other participants. Hence, what impact did AE have on the participants? The authors – independently – initially read through all of the observations, journal entries, and class member responses to make sense of the data, especially looking for repeated words and phrases. From the second collective analysis, re-reading and discussing the dataset, the authors identified themes based on the word analysis. Finally, the authors engaged in discussion to critically view the evaluation process in education to broaden the impact of AE, and use the lessons learned to create constructs for educational transformation. Consequently, the authors focused on how AE can impact educational change.

Action evaluation – what is it? Situated within the action research ‘innovation and change’ mindset (Stern et al. 2014), AE joins participants (and researchers) in a process that leads to social change by addressing

4



relevant issues and valuing all contributors’ opinions. It involves ‘action’ from the participant/ researcher to conduct interactions and include others while focusing on social change – democratic participation, social justice, and community empowerment (Brydon-Miller and Maguire 2009). As Friedman and Rothman explain: Action Evaluation represents a recent attempt to revive the vision of program evaluation as social experimentation. It provides a data-based framework within which project funders, administrators, staff, and participants can collaboratively inquire into and test their goals and action strategies in order to learn from experience as a project unfolds. Action Evaluation focuses on defining, monitoring, and assessing success at every stage of program development in order to make it a self-fulfilling prophecy … It attempts to break new ground, however, by introducing concepts from conflict resolution (Rothman 1997) and action science (Argyris, Putnam, and Smith 1985; Friedman 2006; Schon 1983). In addition, it utilizes an innovative web-linked, data gathering and processing system that enables it to (1) overcome barriers of time and space in interacting with large numbers of stakeholders and (2) develop a rich database from a wide variety of projects. (2001, 58)

In AE, then, the core values of action research are combined with conflict resolution strategies and knowledge of organizational structures to create a means of assessing success of any enterprise, including: partnerships, programs, events, courses, and others. Conflict resolution incorporates reflection and reflexive dialog, as participants and/or disputants communicate to each other what they care about and why, who they are, and why the conflict matters to them (Rothman and Olson 2001). The AE approach emphasizes the participation of all members and has a three-phase process (baseline, formative, and summative) that is described in the following section. Within this article and through two narratives, the authors address research questions regarding AE impact and possible social change.

The AE course – the authors’ journey The course was composed of a purposeful sample of eight participants, including six graduate students, one professor, and the class instructor. Within this AE story, ‘we’ and ‘us’ refers to the two of us, Burrows and Harkness, as we write in a narrative genre. When we use terms such as ‘our class,’‘our classmates,’ or ‘our participants’ we include the others who participated along with the instructor and us. At the beginning of the AE the instructor told us that the syllabus, as well as our own success (or evaluation for a grade), was totally negotiable. The class was to negotiate ‘what,’ ‘why,’ and ‘how’ we learned. Defining, promoting, and assessing our own definition of success was a novel approach for us and little did we know that the path for our journey was not going to be straightforward.

Role of reflexivity In helping us cross from an implicit to an explicit mode of thinking, the instructor began the course with heavy emphasis on ‘reflexivity.’ As such, reflexivity is described as a ‘sloweddown and self-conscious analysis of the interactive nature of reactions … which potentially provides needed space for deciding how one wants to react, instead of simply acting in accord with how one is conditioned to react’ (Rothman 1996, 345). Heikkinen et al. explain reflexivity as ‘pivotal for an action researcher … [that] is aware of the impact of his/her personal experiences while interacting with the other participants … [and] includes analysis of


5


Figure 1. The action evaluation process.

… presumptions concerning reality’ (2012, 2). We came to view reflexivity as a ‘turning back onto oneself’ through circularity (Steier 1992) and admitted that we created our own stories (Heikkinen et al.2012). Our class was to consider content and context in every interaction, as sort of viewing ourselves while viewing others, or considering our actions within the context of considering the actions of others (Russell and Kelly 2002). This prompted us to expand in our own reflexive ways and move from disguised to obvious communications.

The website process We used the ariagroup.com and ariac3.com websites, and they were beneficial to our reflexivity. The ariac3.com website allowed us to ‘[focus] on defining, monitoring, and assessing success at every stage of program development’ (Friedman and Rothman 2001, 58). We provided our answers/reflections (see later Figures 4 and 5) – future study artifact data – for the website, knowing that the information posted was password protected and confidential for the class members only. We interacted with the websites’ points of the ‘what,’ ‘why,’ and ‘how’ of the AE journey. Furthermore, we were immersed in AE by utilizing the structured procedures of the website. This allowed us a glimpse into a system of data gathering and analysis while exploring the three phases of AE processing including the baseline, formative, and summative phases. We called the baseline, formative, and summative phases the ‘what,’ ‘why,’ and ‘how’ processes.

‘What’ process The ‘what’ process, or baseline phase, was the first step that we took in order to generate outcomes for the course. Friedman and Rothman (2001, 59) stated that ‘the baseline phase of [AE] focuses on clarifying definitions of success and on making a program’s “theory of action” explicit by asking’ questions. Individually, and outside class, we each accessed the website and wrote ‘what’ statements about what we wanted to learn as a result of taking the course. These ‘what’ statements – or course goals/outcomes – generated by each of us were presented by the instructor during the next class, and he began to merge our individual ‘what’ responses, with our input, into one combined course vision for ‘what’ we would learn. ‘Why’ process The ‘why’ process, or formative phase, was the second step we took as class members. ‘The formative phase views program implementation as an iterative process of experimentation


6


aimed at testing and self-consciously refining the program’s theory of action’ (Friedman and Rothman 2001, 59). The idea of experimenting and refining was made more precise for us after we read ‘The Power of Why: Engaging the Goal Paradox in Program Evaluation’ (Friedman, Rothman, and Withers 2006). One example of this iterative process was learning the value of telling our ‘why stories’ through answering the question ‘Why is this important to me?’ by first using fictional and then actual identity conflicts. Accordingly, the class members, including the authors, told ‘why stories’ in small groups. These ‘why stories’ became places where our classmates words began to resonate with us and helped create ‘conditions under which we jointly and consciously [defined] who “we” were and what kind of relationship we [wanted] to have’ (Friedman, Rothman, and Withers 2006, 3). ‘Why stories’ allow us to understand the conceptual framework for conflicts. Conflicts can emerge because of resource, interest/objectives, and/or identity issues, and these areas are explored later in this article. In general, conflicts are essential for creativity and innovative problem-solving (Rothman and Friedman 2001). The easiest conflict to resolve is the resource conflict. Resource conflicts emerge because of material goods, economic benefits, territory, and/or coercive power. Interest conflicts, more difficult to resolve, occur as a result of different motives, goals, values, needs, and collective power. Lastly, identity conflicts, sometimes impossible to resolve, surface when dissimilar purpose, meaning, definitions of self and group, and relational power come into play. Understanding these different types of conflicts allowed us to move towards our class goal of success, although we each defined success in different ways and needed to negotiate along areas of resonance and positive disruption.

‘How’ process The ‘how’ process was another step that our class tackled in the formative phase. Again using the website, we documented ‘how’ to operationalize the class’ ‘whats.’ We explained the ways to showcase attainment of the agreed upon course goals and outcomes. Once again we discussed the ‘hows’ until there was a common list for the class members and instructor. The AE process, however, was not over because this was only the formative stage. The last of the three phases that our class entered was the summative phase. According to Friedman and Rothman, this phase ‘… focuses on (1) making judgments about the overall merit of a project, and (2) generalizing from the program’s cumulative experience to other similar situations’ (2001, 59). Were we successful in creating our AE goals? Although we had identified ‘whats,’‘whys,’ and ‘hows,’ this was difficult to answer. What was success? The three phases of AE – baseline, formative, and summative – were always works in progress as we revisited the ‘whats,’ ‘whys,’ and ‘hows’ throughout the quarter. Near the end of the course, the first author drew a visual representation on the whiteboard as the instructor spoke (see Figure 1). This iconic representation seemed to make the implicit process of AE explicit for the visual learners in the class. The final drawing represented a complex five-step process with three phases: baseline, formative, and summative. In the first phase, or baseline, ‘C1’ represents the individual, ‘C2’ represents the relationship with the surroundings or context, and ‘C3’ represents the system as a whole. Class members discussed how reflexive action should include all three elements – individuals, surroundings, and context – and interact with the ‘what,’ ‘why,’ and ‘how’ of the situation. This concept of reflexive action carried over to phase 2 (formative) – refining ‘what we know,’ ‘why we think we know it,’ and ‘how we know it’ – and then to phase 3 (summative) – assessing ‘what we know’ and ‘why we think we know it,’ and ’how we know it.’



7

Figure 2. Iceberg model of conflict types.

Figure 3. Possible strategies for conflict management.

Storying the AE process – author narratives The two stories embedded within this section represent our thoughts about the AE process and the course. We share different perspectives. The first author, then a doctoral student in Curriculum and Instruction, had not experienced AE prior to this course. The second author, an Associate Professor in Mathematics Secondary Education, had participated in an AE process when the instructor facilitated the university’s Curriculum and Instruction program’s Mission and Goal writing project. Therefore, we offer different perspectives of the AE process here.

Burrows' story In the spring of 2009, I held a science/engineering grant coordinator’s position with a university and was a member of several community groups; I came to AE to improve my skills in sustaining existing grant and community partnerships. I reasoned that if I could improve my leadership skills then I would function as an improved liaison and resource for any project. I envisioned a neat list, book, or packet of learning tools that would enable me to tackle any grant problem. AE did not provide me with well-ordered outline of exactly what to do, but


8


instead with general strategies, and I learned three extremely valuable core principles of understanding and collaborating with others in true partnerships. The AE class was unlike any class that I had ever entered. At first, class ended without a sense of direction, clear-cut deadlines, or an outline of what I was going to learn. I felt unease and a sense of disruption. I did not realize the possibility for social change by using AE in grant work. Lastly, I did not realize that we were experiencing the AE process by actually participating in it. This was a key component of AE, learning through cyclic experience. I spent weeks in the AE course ‘misfiring’ and trying to out what was happening. However, what I learned from this experience was that the disruptions led me to search for reasons about ‘what,’ ‘why,’ and ‘how’ (and areas of resonance within them) with people and the content. The beginning weeks of class we had been tasked with creating ‘whats.’ Each individual explained ‘what’ the class should be doing – literally – and as the class proceeded we merged our ideas. During this process, the instructor asked for us to be reflexive. In and out of class I asked ‘What does being reflexive mean?’ and ‘How is being “reflexive” different than being “reflective?”’ As a class we were told that reflexivity was an iterative form of reflection. I decided that being reflective involved thinking about ‘what happened’ (e.g. grant work) and what should be done about ‘what happened.’ Over time my definition of reflexive settled into a process of what happened, what should be done, why it mattered, and again what really happened. One early activity – the ‘why’ stories – was important. In groups of three, each person in the group picked a word from the ‘whats’ that the class had generated and told a story of why the word was important. My word was ‘value,’ and my story was about a time where my parents and I valued something different in relation to my summer employment. This story was significant, because I learned to explicitly state that each person has voice and value. My voice – to seek high school summer employment – was not heard or valued. My parents ultimately did support my summer employment decision, even though our values (mine – new experiences; theirs – family commitment) did not match at the time, and this taught me an important lesson: disagreements do not equate to dislike. Interestingly, after telling the employment story in class, I finally understood why the summer employment incident truly mattered to me. I had put the story into words – explicitly encouraging voice and value for each person and perspective. This was a moment of positive disruption that led directly to a moment of resonance with others. The importance of being reflexive and explicit was solidified in the course at this point. While the first AE core principle – the power of reflexivity – had taken form for me to utilize, the big fireworks were yet to come. During the middle of the course, I experienced a moment of clarity with the idea of resonance, or true connection. I realized that I could implement AE techniques by allowing others to explore a similar process to the AE experience. The course content seemed to me simple yet complex and that dichotomy made me feel oddly comforted. I realized this new process was causing my confusion and that I needed to embrace it. During times of positive disruptions, the internal conflicts that I had experienced were valuable! While admittedly challenging for me to embrace, resonance was the second core principle of my AE journey. I began to search for both reflexivity and resonance by contemplating the difference between active listening (this is what I hear you say) and resonance listening (this is what I hear, it strikes a chord, and then I will ask you a question about it). Pugach and Johnson (2002) noted that essential skills of communication include: support, general openings, reflecting,



9

explicitness, clarifying, silence, placing events in context, and summarizing. Another positive disruption manifested itself because I did not realize the challenges of skillfully using communication. One strategy I used was listening and then asking a question regarding what I heard. As I applied the process, I realized that this was not as simple as it seemed, and there were evident preconceived notions in listening and questioning. These examples reminded me to be conscious of disciplined bias (realizing, accepting, and exploring that I am biased). As such, we discussed power and privilege and the favoritism that can exist because of it. For example, one classmate who worked in law enforcement told a story about a lighting controversy in the community. Almost immediately another student asked why the police department had not provided more lighting, and my classmate had assumed that the fault lay within the law-enforcement agency (it was actually a zoning issue). Looking for bias, like that within the lighting story and others, was a disruption to my method of processing information, but enabled me to resonate with other class members’ perspectives. The last few weeks of class brought the process of AE into focus. The AE process itself, with times of positive disruption, was the third core principle from the AE course. Positive disruption was a powerful conceptual explosion, and I encountered areas of positive disruption within AE through ideas of the abstract ‘what,’ the motivational ‘why,’ and the upcoming operational ‘how.’ Although at times still perplexed, we were figuring out ‘how’ to show our ‘whats.’ More questions coalesced, including: what is an effective assessment for a class like AE? What is meaningful assessment? How do I know if I have had an unsuccessful or rich learning experience? Pairs of students discussed a few methods for displaying progress with these questions (e.g. an electronic media study highlighting findings – for the community). The evaluation ideas generated revolved around interviews, lists, papers, discussion groups, handouts, and communication mapping. I felt engaged and active in my learning, and I began to incorporate learning from class to other areas of my life. Not unlike the ‘why’ of a young child, I found myself asking ‘why’ things mattered. The moments of disruption were welcomed, and I experienced the cycle of resonance and reflexivity. The finale happened in the last weeks as I experienced – and reflected on – the varying levels of certainty in the AE process. I walked away from the course with three core principles: reflexivity, resonance, and positive disruptions. Putting my (not AE’s!) ‘whats,’‘whys,’ and ‘hows’ into perspective was not easy. Throughout the positive disruptions – now a routine habit – I was searching for places to resonate with others as I worked. By the end of the course I was making the tacit explicit, and then explaining why it was important in the first place (reflexivity). I was finding ways to connect with the material and people around me (resonance), and I was using all of the disruptions to be just that – mental struggles leading not only to greater learning but also to applied understanding of the issue (positive disruptions in the AE process). Importantly, during the last weeks of AE, the instructor allowed us to explore causes for conflict outside the classroom. The conflict model presented was a powerful example of incorporating all three AE core principles (reflexivity, resonance, and positive disruptions). The instructor presented the idea in an iceberg model with conflict types (Figure 2) where resources are at the top (above water), objectives in the middle, and identities at the bottom. Strategies to resolve conflicts include looking for Antagonism, Resonance, Invention, and Action (ARIA) (www.ariac3.com). In the strategies model (Figure 3), the type of conflict indicates the place on the ARIA scale where intervention is most likely helpful. The resource conflicts are the easiest to bring to conclusion because solutions and strategies for improvement


10


can be immediately constructed before moving to the action or implementation phase. Objective/goal conflicts are harder to solve and need to start with the participants in conflict finding a resonance point between them, before moving on to solutions and strategies, and finally action. Identity conflicts are very emotional and much harder (if not impossible in some cases) to resolve. These cases require that participants in the conflict ‘vent’ anger and frustrations in an antagonism phase before trying to move through resonance, interventions, and action. Figure 3 shows how the iceberg model is related to possible conflict solutions, and how by identifying a resource, objective, or identity conflict, a person can find a strategy to begin conflict resolution on the ARIA scale. The Antagonism stage is the start for the identify conflicts (e.g. ‘Who am I as a person’), and it is a mix of intense emotions, which can be demanding to wade through with participants. The Resonance stage is the start for the objective conflicts (e.g. ‘What is the point of the event?’), and it relates directly to the ‘power of why.’ The Invention stage is the start for the resource conflicts (e.g. ‘What is needed to make this happen?’), and it is a direct way to begin finding solutions. The Action stage is the start for taking action to solve the conflict. Finding examples of conflict was easy; however, understanding the causes of the conflict and then what strategies to use was eye opening. The conflict lesson resonated and immediately made an impact on my professional and personal life. For example, I took a work call where the person claimed that I did not respond to her recent email, so she was not going to honor the request I had sent a week earlier. My immediate reaction was an intense, uncomfortable feeling, and I began to explain that my request was logical and easy to accommodate. Having the AE process and conflict concepts swirling in my mind made me pause. I asked myself ‘why’ and ‘what’ was causing me to feel offended (reflexive), and realized that I was feeling my identity as a grant coordinator was being challenged. My question to her was ‘What is the reason that you can’t send what is needed?’ Remember she had first told me I did not respond to her email, but her answer was ‘I don’t have time because of my schedule.’ Of course! It was an easy resource conflict. I offered some possible time-extension solutions, she accepted, and the rest of the conversation was very pleasant. The conflict and disruption did not deter my focus, and if I had handled the call differently the outcome might have been unpleasant for both of us. I wonder how I would have processed this exchange before grappling with the AE material by identifying the root conflict quickly. My grant interactions, and partnerships, were enhanced because of the AE content. When I changed ways of interacting with others through reflexivity, resonance, and recognizing the process of positive disruptions, there was change in others and me – especially in expressing our voices and valuing our interactions with each other. It was a resonating moment at the end of the course. I realized that before I began the AE course I did not have grounding for my actions regarding reflexivity, positive disruptions, resonance, explicitness, and conflict management. Grounding the positive disruptions through reflexivity and resonance led to learning of the core principles in my AE firework moments. My personal AE lens developed, and it refined my problem-solving and leadership processes. Consequently, I learned that AE was not about putting ideas into cubbyholes for future use. It was about opening up windows of thought and letting the ideas sway in learning breezes, because I was reflexive and accepting of positive disruptions. I am constantly reminded of ways to approach and analyze situations with others by using reflexivity, resonance, and the process of AE – including valuable positive disruptions and explicitness. Issues such as bias and disputes became manageable, and I realize that it is acceptable to explore ambiguity. Community partnerships, which are often ambiguous, encompass explorations that include


11

products, perspectives, expectations, decision-making, relationships, and habit (Burrows 2011). AE now colors my community partnership work and my decisions both large and small.


Harkness' story I was participating in the AE course for two distinct self-imposed goals: I wanted to experience ‘being a student’ again; and I wanted to learn more about AE and conflict management. It had been about eight years since I had taken a college course. As a faculty member seeking tenure and promotion, I never found the time to immerse myself in learning outside of my content area and research interests. I had just published two papers that focused on the believing game (Elbow 1986, 2006) and its implications for teaching mathematics. When teachers attempt to use believing, rather than strictly doubting, they tease out what is right about students’ wrong answers, honor students’ thinking, and also enhance their own understanding or content knowledge (Harkness et al. 2009–10; Harkness 2009). But I wanted to place myself in the role of learner and learn something entirely unrelated to mathematics education.

The first goal: being a student again … The first reading for the course, selected chapters from The Future of Assessment: Shaping, Teaching and Learning edited by Dwyer (2007), was of particular interest to me because I had just written a paper with a focus on assessment. The co-author of this paper and I analyzed data in the form of videotapes and reflections written by pre-service teachers. The pre-service teachers were asked to identify moments (in the videotapes of their teaching) where they saw themselves assessing their students. In fact, they found very few instances of assessment and they described assessing students’ skills and behaviors, not their mathematical understanding. Furthermore, the pre-service teachers did not identify ‘adaptive’ moments in the lessons (Wiliam and Thompson 2007) in which their assessment led them to change their lesson plans, ask different questions, or assign different mathematics problems in order to meet their students’ needs. The use of formative assessment not only impacts teachers’ practice but, as Shepard noted, ‘a formative assessment classroom culture … counteract[s] students’ obsession with grades and redirect[s] interest and effort toward learning’ (1991, 286). These readings about assessment resonated with me; however, the one with the biggest reverberation was The Art of Possibility (Zander and Zander 2000). When reading the Zander and Zander chapter, I was hooked at the beginning of the second paragraph. That sentence read: ‘but in most cases, grades say little about the work done’ (2000, 25). That is precisely how I felt about grades. In fact, I loathed evaluating student work and assigning grades. Zander and Zander discussed the concept of ‘giving an “A”,’ which ‘spirits you away from the world of measurement into the universe of possibility’ (2000, 46). As someone who values measurement as a mathematical way to compare two quantities, I consider using measurement to characterize students’ work as unjust. The concept of giving an ‘A’ seemed more humanistic. The basic premise behind this concept was that I must decide to give ‘A’s and then perceive the students who I am giving them to as ‘A’ students. When these things happen, I do not have to measure students’ work against my standards or expectations. I can foster relationships with students, which are built upon respect and possibility. Zander and Zander described giving an ‘A’ as ‘an enlivening way of approaching people that promises to transform you as well as them’ (2000, 26). This approach seemed


12


similar to the approach that the instructor was using in the AE course. He envisioned us as ‘A’ students and we were tasked to co-develop the criteria for those ‘A’ grades. In actuality I had previously tried giving ‘A’s but had not had positive results, so one could say that those were prior disruptions. During the Autumn Quarter, I told students that they would all earn ‘A’s in the course and that any assignments which they turned in that I did not deem of ‘A’-quality would be returned to them for revisions. I purposely used the word ‘earn’ rather than ‘give’ in order to convey the message that the grade was not a gift but, rather, something that they had to warrant. Several students had to complete revisions for assignments, yet at the end of the quarter I felt unsatisfied. I gave ‘A’s but did all students earn those ‘A’s? I was uncertain and apprehensive about trying this approach again. Six months later when I read Zander and Zander I underlined sentences that caused me to pause, caused me to rethink, or caused me to question my own question (reflexivity). The problem with the way that I felt about the grades assigned during the Autumn Quarter resided within me, not within my students’ performance. This realization caused resulted in my own positive disruption. In future courses, if my goal for students to earn ‘A’s was to become a reality that transformed my relationships with them, then I first needed to see them as ‘A’ students from the very beginning of the course. With this thought in mind I modeled the method used by Zander and Zander and the instructor in our course. During the Spring Quarter, I asked students who were teachers in a professional development course I was teaching to write letters at the beginning of the quarter. They were to tell me how – what they would do or accomplish – they would earn their ‘A’s by writing the letters in past tense as though it was the end of the quarter. Their letters were delightful to read and they described expectations for their own growth and learning that surpassed my own expectations for them. I looked forward to class each week because I envisioned these teachers as ‘A’s. Their homework problems throughout the quarter showed evidence of hard work, perseverance, and a desire to learn mathematics in ways that made sense to them. As Zander and Zander beautifully wrote: Once I had given my audience [for me, teachers] an A and invented them as colleagues, they were precisely the people with whom I wanted to converse, and I was exactly where I wanted to be [teaching and working with them in a relationship of respect and possibility]. (2000, 42; original emphasis)

Giving an ‘A’ makes grading (or parenting, or working with colleagues, or any number of relationships) a more human endeavor. The Zander and Zander reading from the AE course made me reconsider grades. I was a student again and I used what I learned to improve my teaching. With skills learned about the process of AE, I turned my original apprehension or disruption about giving ‘A’s into what we later termed a positive disruption because the students and I had co-developed how they would earn those grades, the criteria for success.

The second goal: learning more about AE … As mentioned previously, I had been a participant in the process of AE when the instructor facilitated the Curriculum and Instruction program Mission and Goal writing project. I used the ariac3.com website to post my ‘What, Why, and How’ statements, attended meetings, and collaborated with colleagues to establish a mission and goals. This process left me wanting to know more about AE and how to use the ‘social and computer technology to define, promote, and assess success in complex social interventions’ (Rothman 2003, 1). I was especially interested in conflict resolution and how AE empowers stakeholders as an



13

evaluation and intervention tool, which is not imposed from the outside. In fact, it allows participants to be heard and respected. The reading that impacted my thinking the most was The Power of Why (Friedman, Rothman, and Withers 2006). Stakeholders in a conflict are asked to tell ‘stories’ in the presence of the other stakeholders and a skilled mediator probes the underlying values, experiences, and contexts behind the stories. This allows stakeholders to understand each other and the stories provide places of resonance. In fact, I love the resonance (echo, reverberation, or tone) of the way that resonance is used to find connections between peoples’ stories, an echoing of shared values, experiences, and contexts. When resonance occurs, this ‘creates conditions under which we [stakeholders] can jointly and consciously define who “we” are and what kind of relationship we want to have’ (Friedman, Rothman, and Withers 2006, 3). Stakeholders (partners) can reach consensus without ‘smoothing over’ differences. I found that I was listening to others – my family, friends, colleagues, students, and others – so that I could find places of resonance. I also practiced asking questions that helped me identify those places of resonance and the ‘why’ question was the most powerful. ‘Why is that important to you? Tell me more. Help me understand.’ My self-imposed goals for participating in the AE course were met. I became a student again and I learned more about AE. In the process, I also came to value the work ethic of my classmates, doctoral students in different programs. Their stories of juggling school with family with work resonated with me and I appreciated the thoughtful insight that they brought to our co-created formative and summative definition of success for learning.

Findings When the authors analyzed the data from the two narratives and the participant artifacts from the ariac3.com website, they realized the value of the words ‘process’ and ‘partnership’ that each member of the class wrote or discussed at some point. The AE ‘process’ and idea of ‘partnership’ were both implicit and explicit for the participants. The authors embrace the concept of using student voice as it has shifted from evidence source to co-constructors of knowledge with active student–instructor partnerships (Groundwater-Smith and Mockler 2015). Highlighting the voices of the class members is important to us in order to show validity through participant communication and reflection (Koro-Ljungberg et al. 2009) as well as historical continuity, reflexivity, dialectics, workability, ethics, and evocativeness (Heikkinen et al. 2012).

Implicit process From the authors’ narratives, ‘process’ and ‘partnerships’ are used implicitly. The first author explains feeling ‘engaged and active in learning’ and ‘mental struggles leading to … applied understanding of the issue,’ while the second author describes that ‘the approach seems similar’ and ‘it allows participants to be heard.’ The idea of partnering was also expressed implicitly – as Burrows states ‘with people and the content’ and ‘connect with the material and people around me,’ while Harkness writes ‘find connections between peoples’ stories’ and ‘participants are heard and respected.’ In a review of the artifacts, from authentic class member contributions, the authors found that each person in class also referred to the implicit ‘process’ and ‘partnership’ in their postings regarding many different topics. Figure 4


14


Figure 4. Implicit process statements by students.

highlights examples of the implicit use of process and partnership inherent in the postings. The authors identified the first theme, the notion of utilizing the AE class process itself, in the following comment excerpts: apply this concept; trying to recall conversations with others; meaning-making aspect; deep focus on the (next) phase; and ways to show ‘how’ we are learning. The second theme, the importance of forming partnerships, was discovered in these phrases: disrupt the flow and aura created; about the relationships that are formed; which barriers are most prevalent in my own conversations; and listen and learn from each other. Together the narratives and artifacts highlight these two themes. In Figure 4, the phrases that show implicit statements related to the process are italicized.

Explicit process The author narratives explicitly use the terms process and partnership/partners. The first author states that ‘existing partnerships’ and ‘community partnership work,’ while the second author explains ‘stakeholders (partners) can reach consensus.’ For the class members, Figure 5 shows the specific, explicit examples of the use of the word ‘process’ in website postings. Comments that included the explicit use of the words process or processes are italicized in Figure 5. Comments referring to the AE class process include: how dynamic this process really is; understanding and experiencing the process of AE; recursive process of action research; trust the process; and replicate (the process) with others. The explicit phrases relating to partnerships include: mutual (partner) ‘learning’ and ‘change’ process; not only self but others or relationships and context; process, because it is collaborative; the process to get (partner) consensus; and we learn more about each other. Again the power of coming together – in partnership – through this process was emphasized.



15

Figure 5. Explicit process statements by students.

Core values of action research and action evaluation The authors have notes from reflective journals written during AE, and components of social change – democratic participation, community empowerment, and social justice – moved from implicit to explicit for the class members through group discussions and written assignments. Class members were expected to participate inside and outside class to vocalize ideas, and were encouraged to use AE in their lives to impact the world. An example includes one participant engaging the class in discussion on ways to connect the campus police to the larger community, while another student sought input for the treatment of the deaf population in the community. The class as a whole discussed privilege and power and the influences on established educational systems. Admitting bias and inclusion in groups that enjoy privilege and power allowed us to explore alternate perceptions while still acknowledging the inability to leave the biases. An unexpected reward of the class interactions was that the participants became partners and encouraged each other through discussion and actions (Burrows 2011). Notes show that the participants partnered as supporters, critics, confidants, and colleagues throughout AE. Written after the course ended, the authors used

16


reflexive action to convey the completed course and the meaningful actions that resulted from it, including the social change components, cyclic AE process, and finally the critical lens that leads to educational sociopolitical change.


Conclusions and implications Our analysis of the narratives, journal entries, and artifacts indicated that AE class members focused both implicitly and explicitly on the act of learning AE by participating in the explicit process of AE and partnering with each other. Additionally, the AE course altered the way the authors viewed expeditions into unknown learning territory and those with whom they journeyed. The authors noticed that the AE members listened to and responded to others in the course in more meaningful ways and with more resonance – more partnering and less gathering of pure information. The paths that the participants took led to discrepant events, or positive disruptions, for all members. The process was made possible by the willingness of the instructor to join in the journey and allow the authors the privilege of negotiating their own learning. This type of openness and engagement in the process does not happen often, but it is needed (Feldman, Bennett, and Vernaza-Hernandez 2015). Does AE offer a means for students to truly be involved in their education? For the authors it did. They experienced commonalities in content and context, and brought the concepts of positive disruptions and resonance, to the stories of engagement in the course and the process (whether implicit or explicit) of doing AE. The data show that the participants had a voice in the class, and the power differential between the instructor and student was minimized – and discussed – in the AE course. The authors were engaged in the learning process because the people were valued and their input was respected. The authors could focus on the movement as learners instead of focusing only on the products that they produced. The participants found places of resonance with each other as a community of learners and together learned that the tensions which arose as the process of AE was implemented were natural ‘positive’ disruptions. Finally, the process of AE became an example by doing – or action – as compared with receiving information and traditional classroom student isolation. Valuing relationships, and forming partnerships, while utilizing the tools of resonance and positive disruptions, in or out of an academic setting, inspired the authors. The use of AE in other classroom settings, with an emphasis on the learning process, has the potential to change the power dynamics of the group, learning that occurs, and assessments utilized. It can also allow for institutional change and enhanced partnerships outside the classroom. The AE processes can guide researchers and instructors through times of uncertainty. The process, along with the tensions that arise as action research is implemented, should be embraced. The authors revealed stories and highlighted participant input, thus enriching action research with narratives, and exploring the nature of reflection to help the action research community. The aspects of both AE and action research could be implemented through consideration for process, resonance, reflexivity, and positive disruptions for impact in various partnerships, programs, events, courses, or other arenas. Conflict management as a portion of AE enhances the ideas of action research, especially since AE learning must go through an iterative process in order to become an individual’s authentic response to find resonance, positive disruptions, partnerships, and peaceful – but powerful – conflict resolution.



17

How can lessons learned from AE impact educational change? Utilizing a critical lens, AE can promote change and transform educational practice, especially through student evaluation. Assessment traditionally shows ‘what a student knows’ instead of ‘how the student came to know something new.’ It is time to ‘make visible the conditions of knowledge production, lest we create more alienating knowledge’ (Maguire 2006, 67). The authors suggest honoring student voices by embracing the process of learning and valuing the collaborations amongst students and instructors as highlighted in this article. The authors suggest first that the instructor explicitly discuss expectations from administration and reasons for student expectations from the instructor, thus beginning discussion on power differentials. Discussions on power differentials should include bias, and together these topics will provide a platform to enable groups in addressing equities (and inequities) in education and focusing on what is important to the group while meeting established standards – and pushing back on them at the same time. Instructors and students should be empowered with creating the ‘what,’ ‘why,’ and ‘how’ for any classroom without unnecessary outside influence. Secondly, the students should discuss the AE process and possible roadblocks to its implementation. The AE process, through partnership, can bring voice to what is truly necessary in education. We suggest instructors using an AE approach provide some sort of self-monitoring process that the students follow. A few minutes of each class for participants to report experiences and engage in reflexive dialog would be valuable for personal and group dynamics. Additionally, self-monitoring would coincide with the AE process to identify reflexivity, areas of resonance, and positive disruptions that could be used to reinforce the qualities needed for success in an AE enhanced class. Thirdly, a note of caution as the two authors – having traditional science and mathematics backgrounds, respectively – reacted strongly to the process of AE, most likely because of the non-sequential and ephemeral aspects of AE, which are traditionally not valued in those fields. Yet the two authors realized powerful reasons – most notably voice and value – to utilize AE in their future work. The authors would like to claim that they were always open to others, fully engaged, and cognizant about the decisions, but this level of intensity is hard to sustain (Burrows et al. 2012). Lastly, highlighting the process and partnership commitments in learning and assessment could have strong negative reactions from those in educational leadership positions without AE knowledge. Although using resonance and positive disruptions are vehicles to assist in the AE process of cyclic change through conflict, reflection, and action, efforts to incorporate others into the AE process are critical. The key idea that this is an iterative ongoing process must not be lost as others are continually brought into AE. There are ethical concerns with an AE action research design, including risks such as emotional sensitivity, feeling uncomfortable, and the possibility of increased conflicts. The authors realize that that they are exposing their perceptions in this study, and because of this disclosure they are vulnerable. However, the authors feel that this vulnerability is worth the dialog, or democratic participation, that could be started for community empowerment. Using narratives and artifacts, viewed through symbolic interactionism and then a critical pedagogy lens, that depict the personal areas of resonance, positive disruptions, and conflict models of resolution should encourage readers to begin and continue discussions on AE and sociopolitical change. A limitation of this study is the immersion of the two authors in the AE process, and thus the outlook presented lacks distance from the data and analysis. Questions remain for the authors: did we stay open-minded? Did we act wholeheartedly? Were we intellectually responsible with the material? These types of questions defined reflective teaching for John Dewey (1933), and they shape reflective learning for the authors.

18


Disclosure statement No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.


References Aas, M. 2014. “Towards a Reflection Repertoire: Using a Thinking Tool to Understand Tensions in an Action Research Project.” Educational Action Research 22 (3): 441–454. Argyris, C., R. Putnam, and D. Smith. 1985. Action Science: Concepts, Methods, and Skills for Research and Intervention. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Blumer, H. 1969. Symbolic Interactionism: Perspective and Method. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press. Burrows, A. 2011. “Secondary Teacher and University Partnerships: Does Being in a Partnership Create Teacher Partners?” Retrieved from OhioLink ETD Center. (Document number: ucin1307323122). Burrows, A., J. Thomas, A. Woods, B. Suess, and D. Dole. 2012. “Riding the Wave: Student Researcher Reflection on the Action Research Process.” Educational Action Research 20 (2): 291–312. Brydon-Miller, M., and P. Maguire. 2009. “Participatory Action Research: Contributions to the Development of Practitioner Inquiry in Education.” Educational Action Research 17 (1): 79–93. del Carmen Salazar, M. 2013. “A Humanizing Pedagogy Reinventing the Principles and Practice of Education as a Journey toward Liberation.” Review of Research in Education 37 (1): 121–148. Connelly, F., and D. J. Clandinin. 1994. “Telling Teaching Stories.” Teacher Education Quarterly 21 (1): 145–158. Denzin, N. 1995. “Symbolic Interactionism.” In Handbook of Qualitative Research, edited by N. Denzin and Y. Lincoln, 500–515. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Dewey, J. 1933. How We Think: A Restatement of the Relation of Reflective Thinking to the Educative Process. Boston, MA: Heath & Company. Dwyer, C., ed. 2007. The Future of Assessment: Shaping Teaching and Learning. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Elbow, P. 1986. Embracing Contraries. New York, NY: Oxford University Press. Elbow, P. 2006. “The Believing Game and How to Make Conflicting Opinions More Fruitful.” In Bringing Light into the Darkness: A Guide to Teaching Peace, Empathy, and Understanding, edited by C. Weber, 16–25. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann. Feldman, A., K. Bennett, and Vernaza-Hernandez. 2015. “Responsible Action Research for the Pursuit of Justice.” Educational Action Research 23 (1): 85–103. Friedman, V. 2006. “Action Science: Creating Communities of Inquiry in Communities of Practice.” In The Handbook of Action Research, edited by P. Reason and H. Bradbury, 130–143. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Friedman, V., and J. Rothman. 2001. “Action Evaluation for Knowledge Creation in Social-Education Programs.” In Effective Change Management Using Action Learning and Action Research Concepts and Frameworks’ Processes Applications, edited by S. Sankaran, B. Dick, R. Passfield and P. Swepson, 57–65. Australia: Southern Cross University Press. Friedman, V., J. Rothman, and B. Withers. 2006. “The Power of Why: Engaging the Goal Paradox in Program Evaluation.” American Journal of Evaluation 27 (2): 1–18. Giroux, H. 2015. “When Schools Become Dead Zones of the Imagination: A Critical Pedagogy Manifesto.” Revista De Educación 8: 209–222. Given, L. 2008. The Sage Encyclopedia of Qualitative Research Methods. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Gonzalez, N., L. Moll, and C. Amanti (Eds.). 2005. Funds of Knowledge: Theorizing Practices in Households, Communities, and Classrooms. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum Associates, Inc., Publishers. Groundwater-Smith, S., and N. Mockler. 2015. “From Data Source to Co-Researchers? Tracing the Shift from ‘Student-Voice’ to Student-Teacher Partnerships in Educational Action Research.” Educational Action Research: 1–18. Harkness, S. 2009. “Social Constructivism and the ‘Believing Game’: A Mathematics Teacher’s Practice and its Implications.” Educational Studies in Mathematics 70 (3): 243–258.



19

Harkness, S. S., C. Lane, S. T. Mau, and A. Brass. 2009–2010. “The ‘Believing Game’ in Mathematics: Stories in a Discipline of Doubt.” The Journal of the Assembly for Expanded Perspectives on Learning 15: 37–49. Heikkinen, H., R. Huttunen, L. Syrjala, and J. Pesonen. 2012. “Action Research and Narrative Inquiry: Five Principles for Validation Revisited.” Educational Action Research 20 (1): 5–21. Kajamaa, A. 2012. “Enriching Action Research with the Narrative Approach and Activity Theory: Analyzing the Consequences of an Intervention in a Public Sector Hospital in Finland.” Educational Action Research 20 (1): 75–93. Katsarou, E. 2014. “Critical Action Research and the Challenge of Postmodernism: Perspectives and Limitations.” In Action Research, Innovation and Change: International Perspectives across Disciplines, edited by T. Stern, A. Townsend, F. Rauch and A. Schuster, 191–201. New York, NY: Routledge. Kemmis, S. 2006. “Exploring the Relevance of Critical Theory for Action Research: Emancipatory Action Research in the Steps of Jurgen Habermas.” In The Handbook of Action Research, edited by P. Reason and H. Bradbury, 94–105. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Koro-Ljungberg, M., D. Yendol-Hoppey, J. Smith, and S. Hayes. 2009. “(E)Pistemological Awareness, Instantiation of Methods, and Uninformed Methodological Ambiguity in Qualitative Research Projects.” Educational Researcher 38 (9): 687–699. Ladson-Billings, G. 2014. “Culturally Relevant Pedagogy 2.0: Aka the Remix.” Harvard Educational Review 84 (1): 74–84. Maguire, P. 2006. “Uneven Ground: Feminisms and Action Research.” In The Handbook of Action Research, edited by P. Reason and H. Bradbury, 60–70. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Paris, D. 2012. “Culturally Sustaining Pedagogy: A Needed Change in Stance, Terminology, and Practice.” Educational Researcher 41 (3): 93–97. Pugach, M., and L. Johnson. 2002. Collaborative Practitioners: Collaborative Schools. Denver, CO: Love Publishing Company. Rothman, J. 1996. “Reflective Dialogue as Transformation.” Mediation Quarterly 13 (4): 345–352. Rothman, J. 1997. Resolving Identity-Based Conflict: In Nations, Organizations and Communities. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Rothman, J. 2003. “Action Evaluation.” In Beyond Intractability, edited by G. Burgess and H. Burgess. Boulder: University of Colorado. Conflict Research Consoritum. http://beyondretractibility.org/essay/ action_evaluation/. Rothman, J., and V. J. Friedman 2001. “Identity, Conflict, and Organizational Learning.” In Handbook of Organizational Learning and Knowledge, edited by M. Dierkes, A. B. Antal, J. Child, and I. Nonaka, 582–597. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Rothman, J., and M. L. Olson. 2001. “From Interests to Identities: Towards a New Emphasis in Interactive Conflict Resolution.” Journal of Peace Research 38 (3): 289–305. Russell, G. M., and N. H. Kelly. 2002. “Research as Interacting Dialogic Processes: Implications for Reflexivity.” Forum Qualitative Sozialforschung/Forum: Qualitative Social Research 3 (3). Schon, D. 1983. The Reflective Practitioner. New York, NY: Basic Books. Shepard, L. 1991. “Formative Assessment: Caveat Emptor.” In Research and Reflexivity, edited by F. Steier, 279–303. London: Sage Publications. Sleeter, C. 2012. “Confronting the Marginalization of Culturally Responsive Pedagogy.” Urban Education 47 (3): 562–584. Steier, F. 1992. “Reflexivity and Methodology: An Ecological Constructionism.” In Research and Reflexivity, edited by F. Steier, 163–185. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications. Stern, T., A. Townsend, F. Rauch, and A. Schuster. 2014. Action Research, Innovation and Change: International Perspectives across Disciplines. New York, NY: Routledge. Wiliam, D., and M. Thompson. 2007. “Integrating Assessment with Learning: What Will It Take to Make It Work?” In The Future of Assessment: Shaping, Teaching and Learning, edited by C. A. Dwyer, 53–82. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Willis, J. W. 2007. Foundations of Qualitative Research: Interpretive and Critical Approaches. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Zander, R., and B. Zander. 2000. The Art of Possibility. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press.