Ethics in Action Research

Doug felt that even though his action research project in his mind did not contain any ethical dilemmas, he should still “cover his bases” by sending out a letter to parents at the beginning of the year, stating who he was, what he’d be doing as a student researcher, and his duties in that regard. He also sent materials to his college and to the state (DPI?), and he took the extra step of speaking with students about what he was doing in addition to contacting their parents. In the course of his project he allowed students to control the dissemination of information, and provided pseudonyms when writing up his results so as to ensure confidentiality. Despite his initial sense that his project would be absent pressing ethical dilemmas, he obviously went to great lengths to ensure that any concerns over potential dilemmas would be assuaged by his efforts to comply with ethical standards.

Jeanette says her ethical dilemma revolved around the issue of disclosure. Her project was geared towards uncovering gender biases in the district’s Basal reading program. In the course of her project the principal of the school she was working in inquired as to the purpose of the research, to which she responded she was reticent to provide the purpose of the study and any findings she had found. Her description of the interaction she had with the principal makes it seem as though the principal was prying into her study, but I can’t help but feel as though if she had been more forthcoming about the purpose and her findings that the principal might have been interested and maybe even supportive of her study. To assume that the teachers and administrators of a school are going to be adversaries in the course of conducting research potentials creates a self-fulfilling prophecy; at the very least a researcher should disclose information that is not strictly confidential as a show of good faith, with the assurance that any potentially negative or coercive information will not be submitted to authorities overseeing the school without the school’s knowledge. Moreover, if Jeanette really wished to address the potential gender biases in the district’s reading material, she should want to solicit personal and professional support from the people she wishes would consider the possibility of gender bias, namely the principal and staff.

1. Area of Focus:

The proposed area of focus is constructing meaning in reading, which obviously has a great deal to do with teaching and learning but may be a bit vague to suite some people interested in replicating the action research project

2. Research Questions:

The author does have one research question: "What is the effect of an altered curriculum on student performance?" I believe the question is somewhat disconnected to the findings of the study; it is unclear whether the altered curriculum has a greater effect on building meaning in reading than the use of a traditional curriculum.

3. Locus of Control:

Because the author of the study was the facilitator of the classroom reading and discussion times, analyzing the potential impact of the alternate curriculum was within his locus of control.

4. Data collection:

The author used interview with students (qualitative) , personal observations (qualitative), statewide assessment scores (quantitative), and regular collection of student work (qualitative?) to help determine his findings. The author seemed to draw heavily on quantitativeness methods for determining his findings, which may be appropriate given the subjective nature of determining whether meaning was increased.

5. Ethics:

According to the text there are no ethical considerations, but I wonder if another researcher could perhaps propose some ethical considerations, such as the impact different cultural backgrounds could have on how meaning is evaluated.

6. Reflective stance:

The author's use of action research has seemingly caused him to be more reflective and more willing to use action research in the course of his professional development.

7. Action:

As to whether the study facilitated action, the answer is a clear yes. The author has used his study to evaluate himself as a teacher, and his findings have led him to utilize a variety of instructional methods so as to foster enhanced vocabulary development in his classroom. In addition he is continuously looking for new methods for improving vocab development.

8. Action-data connection:

The author demonstrated that the data he looked for, collected and analyzed have led to his taking action as a teacher, and that the findings of his study have greatly aided him in implementing effective strategies for enhancing the meaning taken from reading for his students.

Proposition Statements

Were I to construct my questionnaires and attitude scales for unmotivated kids at alternative schools (or borrow some from existing studies), I believe one potential bias could be a misunderstanding between the students and myself over what constitutes an acceptable level of motivation. Depending on their life history and background, a student may perceive him or herself as motivated simply by showing up to school or class, by not talking back while the teacher lectures, perhaps even for only sleeping for part of the time. To resolve such a dilemma I would either need to lower my expectations as to the degree of motivation I expect for students, or clearly and effectively communicate to students what types of behaviors are apparent in a motivated student. The second option is additionally problematic as most research concerning motivational surveys deal with students in a general education setting (although many of these students are still "at-risk"), and there are academic differences in the terms and assessment strategies used.