ACTION RESEARCH MODEL BY KEMMIS AND McTAGGART

Action research is essentially a series of cycles of REFLECTION, PLANNING and

ACTION. Kemmis and McTaggart (1988) developed a concept for action research. They
proposed a spiral model comprising four steps: planning, acting, observing and reflecting (see
Figure 4.4).


























Figure 4.4 Carr and Kemmiss Action Research Model (1986)

The diagram shows the four steps in action; the movement from one critical phase to
another, and the way in which progress may be made through the system. Action research is
all about what happens in the classroom. Teachers are encouraged to be researchers
investigating what is happening in their classrooms.
Basically it is an approach to improve your own teaching practice. You start with a
problem you encounter in your teaching practice. It could be a concern that students do not
spend enough effort in reviewing course materials; or they have great difficulty learning a
particular topic in the course. Faced with the problem, the action researcher will go through a
series of phases (reflect, plan, action, observe) called the Action Research Cycle to
systematically tackle the problem.
In practice, things rarely go perfectly according to plan first time round. Usually you
discover ways to improve your action plan in light of your experience and feedback from the
students. One cycle of planning, acting, observing and reflecting, therefore usually leads to
another, in which you incorporate improvements suggested by the initial cycle. Projects often
do not fit neatly into a cycle of planning, action, observation and reflection. It is perfectly
legitimate to follow a somewhat disjointed process if circumstances dictate.

Phase 1
Phase 2
EXAMPLE:



































I am not happy with the textbook we are using, but it is the only
one available. What can I do about it? I cannot change the
book: should I change my method of using it? Perhaps I should
try paired work.

I show the children how to ask and answer questions of each
other to make otherwise boring material relevant to themselves.
We try out this technique in class.

I join various pairs and listen to their conversations. I record
some conversations. I keep my own notes.

The activity is lively, but some questions wander from the text.
I want to get across the material in the text.

Perhaps I could develop with the children an interview
technique, where A asks B questions which will elicit responses
based on the material. Will that make it boring again? How can
I guard against this? Perhaps I can involve them even more
actively.

The children record their own conversations. There are not
enough tape recorders to go around, so they work in fours,
taking it in turns to listen and talk. At the end of the two sets of
interviews they listen and comment on individual recordings.
Planning:




Acting:



Observing:


Reflecting:


Planning:





Acting:

Observing:



Reflecting:
They really enjoy this. And they seem to be gleaning
information from the text in formulating their own question and
answers.

Points to ponder:
Am I correct pedagogically in teaching the content through this
process? I must consult my head of department on this. Should I
aim for this sort of learning more often and with other classes? I
am worried about practical difficulties such as too much noise
and insufficient tape recorder.