Hi,

I'm going to give this a go, however I'm feeling a little lost in the
'fog' and seem to be going around in circles a little.

1.  How do you assess the quality of your practitioner
research?

As a facilitator working with teachers, I am aware of the need to asess
the quality of my research from two levels. The first from the changed
understandings of the teachers and second from my own changed
understandings. I feel that both are equally important and necessary. 

I agree with Harriets comment that the learning and knowledge gain is
specific to these teacher/myself and the context in which the study is
located. It is in fact respecting that context and emphasising the need
for developing a 'collaborative culture' of learning that supports my
research being the way it is. I am concerned and resistant to any
thought of seeking out 'larger scale' data as this may push aside the
richness of each individual's context.

As a result, I am of the belief that making the process undertaken clear
and visible to those who wish to engage with the study is important. If
the process undertaken, aims and experiences are open to comment then
there aren't 'findings' just being placed out in the world. Stories are
a wonderful way of sharing knowledge. This is how knowledge and learning
was shared for centuries and I feel that the rich experiences, alongside
the process of research, can be exposed through such stories.

2.  How can we enhance the validity and rigour of our
practitioner research?

Harriet wrote...whether it works (to my mind), and whether I can
communicate it sufficiently to others...

I like these two criteria. Action research as I embarked on my journey
provided a took by which I, along with teachers, could investigate
their/my teaching/facilitation. Our aim was not to influence a wider
world (although if people connected with our learning it may do so), but
to find out whether it 'worked for us!' This was what was most clearly
relevant to the teachers. They did not consciously participate in
'action research' although the process they participated in was
influenced by this methodology. As facilitator, I did not feel it would
have been helpful to 'label' their learning as they were excited about
being collaborative learners and felt empowered to develop their own
learning within their school (this was clearly not something they had
been exposed to in the past - sadly).

Rigour then becomes a very personal issue. I am resistant to following a
set method for action research instead being informed by all the models
out there and allowing these to guide a natural process of learning. To
maintain the rigour I was conscious of regular reporting, ongoing
reflection and shared conversations to ensure we remained focused on our
research aims (this did not restrict new/alternate avenues being
followed), but kept a check on where we wanted to be headed in the first
place.

I would like to thank this group as it is challenging my thinking of
action research and my own study as I am in the process of writing up my
PhD. Embedding this 'new learning' within my writing is causing me a
little frustration, so if any advice could be given I would be very
appreciative.

Rachel


----------------------------------------------------
Rachel Perry (nee Darell)
(02) 9948 4747
0421 213 491




-- 
UTS CRICOS Provider Code:  00099F
DISCLAIMER: This email message and any accompanying attachments may contain
confidential information.  If you are not the intended recipient, do not
read, use, disseminate, distribute or copy this message or attachments.  If
you have received this message in error, please notify the sender immediately
and delete this message. Any views expressed in this message are those of the
individual sender, except where the sender expressly, and with authority,
states them to be the views the University of Technology Sydney. Before
opening any attachments, please check them for viruses and defects.