Teachers’ Action Research in Designing, Producing, and Using Education Material for

Intercultural Understanding

Name of organization:
University of Thessaly, Department of Early Childhood Education
Why action research?

Action research is a form of self-reflective research carried out by the participants themselves in
an educational or social context. The aim of the research activity is to improve the social or
educational practices of the participants and to assist the researchers in deepening their
understanding of their own practices and the contexts in which they take place.

Most researchers who have been involved in the action-research (Whitehead, 1989, Elliot, 1991,
Carr and Kemmis, 1993, McNiff, 1999, McNiff, Lomax and, Kemmis and Wilkinson, 1998)
agree that among the important features of action research are the following characteristics:

* It is inclusive: the researcher and subject of the research are the same person, and the central
research question is: “How can I improve my practice?”

* It is collaborative: the researcher collaborates with other researchers, colleagues, facilitators,

and critical friends, etc.

* It is democratic: it can be done by anybody who has the motivation and the desire to
understand and to improve educational practices, regardless of age, gender, social status,
occupation and other characteristics of the researcher.

* It is a learning process: focusing on learning, and acquiring new knowledge, skills and attitudes
and their qualitative improvement.

* It is critical and transformative: action-research does not intend for the researcher merely to
improve his or her technical skills. Rather, action research should help him or her to view his or
her own work critically and within the general context within which he or she works. This
reflective process is intended to gradually build awareness of practice and to promote the
emancipation of the researcher.

The content of the action research

The action research that has been carried out by teachers was mainly concerned with the design,
production, and use in the classroom of intercultural learning material.

Many researchers have suggested that the difficulties that many students of ethnic and cultural
minorities have in the learning process are linked to inappropriate teaching methods and also
improper learning materials. The researchers suggest changing the traditional model of
transferring knowledge to teaching models that focus on mutual interaction between teachers and
students. They also suggest using the wide variety of experiences available to students of every
multicultural classroom as a central component (Nieto, 2004). Correspondingly, the educational
materials used in the classroom should mobilize students to exchange experiences, opinions, and
emotions. This exchange is in the basic framework for an effective and equitable cultural
communication (Gay, 2000).

Teachers involved in the action research observed the absence of appropriate educational
material from the classroom, which would support their work in creating intercultural awareness
among students. Thus, after a proposal from the trainer, teachers decided to design and create
their own teaching materials that they would use in their lessons. The process of designing,
creating, and using the material was in the form of action research. The use of action-research in
intercultural teacher training has been stressed by other researches (Magos, 2007).

The educational material and the reflection of teachers - researchers

The educational materials designed, created, and used by teachers was built on the values of
intercultural education. These values focus on mutual acceptance and respect for all forms of
otherness, on developing empathy, on eliminating stereotypes and prejudices, and on promoting
social justice, equality of opportunity, and democracy (Kincheloe and Steinberg, 1997).

The action research involved 78 teachers: 24 in-service and 54 student teachers. During the eight
weeks, the whole process was maintained; they designed, individually or in groups, created, and
used in the classroom intercultural educational material. The material was used both in
combination with lessons of the curriculum and autonomously as a motive for intercultural
awareness, understanding, and acceptance of difference.

The material created was in the form of an educational packet and contained two or more of the
following objects: puzzles, posters, educational dominoes, board game, literacy cards, cards with
paintings, photographs, children’s books, activity sheets, etc. All of the above items have as a
main element in their content the meeting with various forms of otherness: ethnic, religious,
social, family, and sex, etc.

All 78 teachers followed the classic spiral model with the stages of planning, action, observation,
reflection, and further planning, etc. (McNiff, 1999) to implement the action research. The key
elements of observation and reflection that were developed by teachers (researchers during the
action research) and used subsequently as materials (including those for evaluation) by students
in relation to the action research objectives. The participation and interest in the material, the
cooperation among students, the satisfaction of the teacher from the use of the material on its
relationship with students, the performance of teaching goals, the obstacles to the
implementation of the material, and the ways to overcome them, were the key issues developed.

The development of the action research for each participant had its own features, which were
determined by several factors such as general pedagogical knowledge and teaching experience,
the availability of time, the level and the number of students in class, and more.
After the end of the first cycle of action research, the teachers had to answer questions like: how
easy it was to use the material, how flexible the material was adapted to the ways of learning and
interests of students, did the material motivate the participation and collaboration of students, did
the material support free expression and exchange of experiences among students, did the
material promote cooperation with family and the wider social environment of the students, and
how the material created a non-competitive atmosphere in the classroom?

The reflections on the above questions led teachers, during the second cycle of action research,
to design changes in the format and content of the material they had produced and to test it again
in the classroom. The reflection developed at the end of the second cycle again led to very
interesting elements that had to do mainly with the way that educational material handled various
forms of otherness. Here, teachers discovered some very hidden forms of stereotypes which
contained the material and which they had not realized until then. Also, they thought of ways of
enrich material to attach even more cultural dimensions of diversity both in the school and in
society. Thus, followed was a last cycle of action research in the design, creation, and
implementation of the final form of the material.

During the action research, teachers shared their ideas, comments, and reflections both with the
facilitator and with other colleagues in organized school and inter-school meetings. Throughout
the action research, teachers and researchers recorded the stages of their research in a research
diary. The research diary is a very effective tool for the evaluation of the action research and
general educational interventions that are organized by teachers in classrooms (Altrichter et al.,
2001).

The facilitator of action research

During all stages of the action research the external facilitator had an advisory role, offering
assistance only if requested by the teachers, supporting the process by providing information
from his own knowledge and experience, and generally contributing to a widening of the
teachers’ ideas and comments.

The process of action research motivated the reflection of the facilitator. The main question for
him was whether the action research will not remain merely a technical tool for a specific
experimentation, but will eventually lead the teachers and researchers to a more critical attitude
towards the educational materials commonly they use. This critical attitude will help teachers
both to choose the appropriate educational material and to be able to create their own educational
materials that meet the teaching needs of their students.

The evaluation of the teachers’ action research

The evaluation of the action research was done internally by using both questionnaires and
interviews. Through these, the researchers assessed the views of the teachers who did the action
research, their desire to do it again in the future, their experience with the content of this research
activity, the difficulties they encountered, and the communication with the facilitator and with
their colleagues.

Concerning the degree of difficulty an overwhelming majority (78%) of teachers said that they
had found the process of action research an easy process and 75% agreed that the process was
very interesting. They said during the interviews:
”At the beginning I was frightened, but as time passed the more and more I understood the
methodology of the action research. I would say that it is an easy and very interesting process,
but requires attention to the implementation in order to have effective results” (I3).

“For me the role of teacher-researcher was something new. It was the first time that I have done
action research and I enjoyed it. I didn’t have any problem with the process. I followed the step-
by-step instructions that were given to us by the facilitator: design, action, observation, reflection
and from the beginning again” (I7).

Three-quarters (75.5%) of teachers indicated in the questionnaires that they intend to do again
action research after the positive experience they had. A teacher said in his interview:

“Yes, I shall do it again. Now that I actually have the experience! But I think the more we get
involved in the action research the more we love it. You improve your job as a school teacher.
You learn to create goals, you learn to reflect, to observe” (I5).

About half (52%) of the teachers who participated in the action research said that they find its
content “very interesting” and 17% have evaluated it as “extremely interesting.” In their
interviews, some teachers stated:

“The process to create educational material in order to create intercultural sensitive students was
extremely interesting. My group has prepared an educational folder with various things: pictures,
cards, posters etc. All serve the same purpose and from what we saw in class, we achieved our
purpose” (I3).

“Very good [was the content of the action-research]. We produced a lot of material: puzzles,
board games, etc. We had nice ideas, we chose some of them and we put them in practice. We
enjoyed it more than the children who used it” (I6).

About the difficulties encountered, 30% of teachers said that the greatest difficulty in doing the
action research was the time needed. A small percentage (12%) of in-service teachers said that
the main problem was the reaction of their colleagues when they announced what exactly they
were doing. The in-service teachers (20%) said the main problem was the time needed for the
implementation and this time could be given to the preparation of courses. Finally, a significant
proportion (24%) from pre-service teachers said they had difficulties in the process of
observation and reflection. Some teachers said in their interviews:

“For me, the most difficult stage was that of reflection. There, you should press your mind to
think the changes needed for the improvement of the material” (I2).

Other difficulties expressed by the teachers during the interviews were:

“My problem was the timing. You need time to think, to design, to redesign, to write in the
research-diary. This time helps to have good results, but it wasn’t always available” (I1).
“The time [was an issue]. I am not sure if the time spent on action research would have been
better spent on organizing the courses, which would have even more positive results for the
entire class” (I3).

“I would prefer if I had done this in my previous school. In this school I had problems. Mostly
from some colleagues” (I9).

Regarding self evaluation, from the responses of the teachers they appear to evaluate the whole
process in a positive way:

“It went much better than I expected — the process of action research and regarding the final
material we produced. And I am not going to say so, if it wasn’t said to me by the children who
used the material. They felt great, excited” (I8).

“If 10 was excellent, I would put it at an eight or an eight and a half. I am very pleased by the
outcome. The material did a good job. Three times I worked in the classroom and the children
enjoyed it” (I5).

As can be seen from the responses of teachers in the questionnaire, but also from their statements
in interviews, their participation in action research has been a very positive process for them. The
process was not related only with the technical knowledge of the methodology of doing action
research, but was related with the use of reflection in the everyday educational experience. This
is exactly what makes the action research a separate research process, which has all the
characteristics of a transformative learning process (Mezirow and Associates, 2000).

Bibliography

Αltrichter, H., Posch, P. and Somekh, B. (1993) Teachers investigate their work, London:
Routledge.
Carr, W. and Kemmis, S. (1993). Action Research in Education. Ιn Hammersley, M. (Ed.),
Controversies in Classroom Research, London: Open University Press.
Elliot, J. (1991). Action Research for Educational Change, Milton Keynes: Open University
Press.
Gay, G. (2000). Culturally Responsive Teaching. Theory, Research and Practice, New York:
Teachers College Press.
Kemmis, S. and Wilkinson, M. (1998) Participatory action research and the study of practice. In
B. Atweb, S. Kemmis and P. Weeks (Εds), Action Research in Practice. Partnerships for social
juctice in education, London: Routledge.
Kincheloe, J.L. and Steinberg, S.R. (1997) Changing Multiculturalism, Buckingham: Open
University Press.
Magos, K. (2007) The contribution of action-research to training teachers iintercultural
education: A research in the field of Greek minority education, Teaching and Teacher
Education, 23, 1102 -1112.
McNiff, J. (1999) Action Research: Principles and Practices, London: Routledge.
McNiff, J., Lomax, P. and Whitehead J., (2003) You and your action research project, London:
RoutledgeFalmer.
Mezirow, J. and Associates (2000) Learning as Transformation. Critical Perspectives on a
Theory in Progress, London: J. Wiley and Sons.
Nieto, S. (2004) Affirming Diversity. The Sociopolitical Context of Multicultural Education, 4th
Ed., New York: Pearson
Whitehead, J. (1989) Creating a living educational theory from questions of the kind “How do I
improve my practice?”, Cambridge Journal of Education, Vol. 19 (1), pp. 41-52.