Reflection as pedagogy in action research
Date
2021-02-15
Journal Title
Journal ISSN
Volume Title
Publisher
Informa UK Limited
Abstract
In this paper, we attend to the pedagogical role of reflection within action research practices. We discuss educational considerations of the complex process of improving curriculum, while undertaking collaborative research in which reflection within the iterative process of action research became pedagogical. We draw upon our reflections from an action research project on research-based learning in course-based, professional graduate programs. In particular, our purpose was to think about our reflections from diverse roles and viewpoints, from associate dean, academic coordinator, instructor, and co-researchers, to explore the various ways in which our collaborative understandings informed graduate program design. Our narrative reflections allowed us to learn about our individual and collective beliefs about action research, and the ways in which our beliefs and practices shaped graduate students’ experiences learning about and conducting action research. In drawing on our critical reflective processes, we show both the tensions and possibilities of collaboration in action research. We conclude, after reflecting on our collective processes engaged in this paper, that documenting researchers’ experiences can be vital in action research for addressing complex educational challenges in the improvement of curriculum and programs, and in creating the conditions for enhanced student learning experiences. © 2021 Educational Action Research.
Description
This is an Accepted Manuscript of an article published by Taylor & Francis in 'Educational Action Research' on 2021-02-15, available online: https://www.tandfonline.com/10.1080/09650792.2021.1886960.
Keywords
action research, curriculum review, graduate programs, Reflections, student research
Citation
Simmons, M., McDermott, M., Eaton, S. E., Brown, B., & Jacobsen, M. (2021). Reflection as pedagogy in action research. Educational Action Research, 29(2), 245–258. doi:10.1080/09650792.2021.1886960