Supervision based on collaboration, participative decision making, and reflective practice is the hallmark of a viable school improvement program that is designed to promote teaching and learning. Action research has gradually emerged as an important form of instructional supervision to engage teachers in reflective practice about their teaching and to examinefactors that aim to promote student achievement. This article examines supervision as it has evolved and moved toward action research advocacy and presents two case studies that show how action research improves teaching and learning. Practical guidelines for implementing action research as instructional improvement are provided for principals.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Adelman, C. (1993). Kurt Lewin and the origins of action research. Educational Action Research, 1(1), 7-24.
2.
Calhoun, E. F. (2002). Action research for school improvement. Educational Leadership, 59(1), 18-24.
3.
Corey, S. M. (1953). Action research to improve school practices. New York: Teachers College Press.
4.
Danielson, C. (2002). Enhancing student achievement: A framework for school improvement. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
5.
Elliott, J. (1991). Action research for educational change. Bristol, PA: Open University Press.
6.
Foshay, A. W. (1994). Action research: An early history in the United States. Journal of Curriculum and Supervision, 9(4), 317-325.
7.
Glanz, J. (2003). Action research: An educational leader's guide to school improvement. Norwood, MA: Christopher-Gordon Publishers.
8.
Glickman, C. D. (1998). Renewing America's schools: A guidefor schoolbased action. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
9.
Lewin, K. (1998). Resolving social conflicts. New York: Harper and Brothers.
10.
Marzano, R. J., Pickering, D. J., & Pollock,J. E. (2001). Classroom instruction that works: Research-based strategies for increasing student achievement. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
11.
McLean, J. (1995). Improving education through action research: A guide for administrators and teachers. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
12.
Mills, G. E. (2002). Action research: A guide for the teacher researcher (2nd ed.). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
13.
Northern Valley Regional High School District. (2000). Differentiated supervision. Damerest, NJ: Author.
14.
Oja, S., & Smulyan, L. (1989). Collaborative action research: A developmental approach. London: Falmer Press.
15.
Sagor, R. (1992). How to conduct collaborative action research. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
16.
Schon, D. A. (1988). Coaching reflective teaching. In P. P. Grimmett & G. F. Erickson (Eds.), Reflection in teacher education (pp. 19-30). New York: Teachers College Press.
17.
Sullivan, S., & Glanz, J. (2000). Alternative approaches to supervision: Cases from the field. Journal of Curriculum and Supervision, 15(3), 212-235.
18.
Taba, H., & Noel, E. (1957). Action research: A case study. Washington, DC: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
19.
Zepeda, S. (2003a). Instructional supervision: Applying tools and concepts. Larchmont, NY: Eye on Education.
20.
Zepeda, S. (2003b). The principal as instructional leader: A handbook for supervisors. Larchmont, NY: Eye on Education.
