See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/312093693

The use of action research in a computer programming module taught using a

blended learning environment.

Article · September 2016

DOI: 10.21506/j.ponte.2016.9.5

CITATIONS READS

3 4,430

2 authors:

Vikash Jugoo Vimolan Mudaly

Mangosuthu University of Technology University of KwaZulu-Natal
7 PUBLICATIONS   81 CITATIONS    43 PUBLICATIONS   237 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Teacher knowledge View project

Semihereditary polynomial rings View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Vimolan Mudaly on 18 August 2017.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Vol. 72 | No. 9 | Sep 2016 International Scientific Researches Journal

The use of Action Research in a Computer Programming module taught

using a Blended Learning Environment

Vikash Ramanand Jugoo and Vimolan Mudaly

Mangosuthu University of Technology and University of KwaZulu-Natal

Abstract
Many novice programmers in higher education find computer programming particularly
difficult due to its problem solving nature. In this study, I explore the use of an action research
methodology, in an attempt to improve the existing tools and support structures provided in the
blended learning environment (BLE).
This qualitative study, used an interpretivist paradigm to explore the engagement of sixty, first
year students in an introductory computer-programming course at a selected university in South
Africa, using an action research approach within the context of a BLE. The action research
methodology was used, and was based on planning, acting, observing and reflecting. Activity
Theory was used as a theoretical framework to describe and analyse the actions and engagement
that transpired within the BLE.

Introduction

What is Action Research?

According to McNiff (2013, p. 23) “action research is a name given to a particular way of
looking at your practice to check whether it is as you feel it should be”. Action research is a
practitioner form of research that requires professional intervention to improve the practice in
line with the value systems of the researchers. Action can be taken without performing any
research and research can be performed without any action. However, action research combines
both the process of action and conducting research. Whitehead (1989) provided a simple
question: “how do I improve my practice?” with the aim of making improvements in the
teaching and learning process. Action research is a process of enquiry by the teacher into the
effectiveness of his/her owns teaching, and the learning taking place by the students. McNiff
and Whitehead (2009, p. 11) describe a three step process of conducting action research. The
first step requires identifying the problem in the learning process. Secondly, it involves doing

52
Vol. 72 | No. 9 | Sep 2016 International Scientific Researches Journal

research to analyse the problem and to find ways of improving the situation. It is also important
to determine whether improvement in the learning process occurred. Finally, it is about telling
the story and sharing the findings. This is the process that was followed in this study.

Action research was first well documented by Kurt Lewin in the 1940s. He introduced the
theory and practice of action research which included the “iterative spiral” of planning, acting,
observing and reflecting, which could be used by groups in their own research to solve problems
(McNiff, 1988). This work provided the foundation of researching real life situations with the
researcher being the active participant (Greenwood & Levin, 1998). Many researchers have
elaborated on Lewin’s form of action research with each promoting a different cyclical
approach of action and reflection (Elliott, 1981; Kemmis & McTaggart, 1982; Ebbutt, 1985;
McKernan, 1991). Furthermore, action research has been used in a number of philosophical
paradigms such as positivism (Clark, 1972), interpretivistic (Elden & Chisholm, 1993) and
critical theory (Carr & Kemmis, 1986).

While there are difference in approaches when conducting action research, there are also some
common elements which satisfies the requirements in any definition (Walter-Adams, 2006).
According to Walter-Adam (2006) action research is about teachers striving to understand and
to improve their practice. It involves the gathering of evidence about practice with teachers
trying to see the effects of planned changed in their practice. Action research is a process that
strives to be systematic and rigorous. Carr and Kemmis (1986) describe action research as being
about the improvement of practice, the improvement of the understanding of practice and the
improvement of the situation in which the practice takes place.

A key component to encourage the change of practice hinges on the process of reflection. This
reflective process leads to re-planning and further action to transform the BLE through a
reflexive approach. Lisle (2010) defines reflection as thinking analytically, critically and
evaluatively, while reflexing is planning future actions after receiving a response. Reflexivity
is well suited as an approach to be used in an educational environment where learning takes
place. Winter (1987) states that a competent teacher will search all possibilities to find a the
reason for the lack of understanding, resulting in a reflexive practice. The researcher is able to
learn from the reflexive practice and implement changes in order to improve the learning
environment. Steier (1991) outlines that when the researcher is part of the research inquiry,
then a reflexive form of methodology occurs and Brookfield (2000) states that in doing so the

53
Vol. 72 | No. 9 | Sep 2016 International Scientific Researches Journal

researcher raises his/her consciousness. A reflexive process takes place within the action
research methodology which deals with planning, acting, observing, reflecting and revised
planning which requires the integration between the theory and the practice (Winter, 1987).

Some critics argue that action research cannot be used as a research method (Hakim, 2000;
Williams & May, 1996) since it lends itself to specific fields. Charles and Ward (2007, p. 3)
indicate that the history of action research “paint a complex picture” with its roots being found
in different “geographical contexts and in different professional research communities”. In this
study, we do not see any of these criticisms as a stumbling block for the following reasons.
Firstly, action research has been extensively used in education with well-published studies
supporting its use (Baumfield, Hall, & Wall, 2013; McAteer, 2013). Secondly, to buttress our
motive for using action research, we draw strongly on the explanation given by Walter-Adams
(2006) that, action research concerns a teacher’s efforts to understand and to improve his own
practice, by gathering of evidence about his practice, and making changes to improve and
receiving feedback to evaluate the effects of planned changed in their practice.

Action Research in this study

Stenhouse (1983) extended this idea that “action research is systematic enquiry undertaken to
improve a social situation, and then made public”. He points out that curriculum research and
development is the responsibility of the teacher, and “it is not enough that teachers work should
be studied, they need to study it themselves” (Stenhouse, 1975, p. 143). However, the notion of
improvement can be problematic since one person’s idea of improvement may be seen
negatively by another person since it depends on the researcher’s values and beliefs in a
situation. Educational research through action research may not result in a universal truth. It is
about the researcher within a particular context attempting to improve a situation based on his
value system.

Within the context of this study, as the researchers, we had made use of an action research
methodology in an attempt to improve our engagement as a lecturers and to further improve the
students’ engagement in learning computer programming through the use of a BLE. Within an
interpretative paradigm, a qualitative approach was used to understand how and why students
engaged in computer programming. Through this understanding, it was easier to plan and take
further actions in an attempt to improve the engagement and hence enhance the learning. The
action research process was well suited for this study since it allowed me as the lecturer and

54
Vol. 72 | No. 9 | Sep 2016 International Scientific Researches Journal

researcher to constantly reflect and evaluate the student engagement in the BLE resulting in
further actions in attempting to improve the BLE.

Lewin’s (1946) model of planning, acting, observing and reflecting and then re-planning was
used in this study. This action research process, which outlines two cycles, is illustrated in
Figure 1 and depicts the progress of time.

Figure 1: An adaptation of Lewin’s cyclic model

Each of the action research steps that occur in one cycle are explained in Table 1.

Table 1: Action Research process used in this study

Action Research Step How it is used in this study

Planning I identified challenges experienced by students in computer

programming. This phase involved my engagement as a
lecturer, through the use of reflection and analysis, to plan a
strategy to find ways to address the challenges. In most cases
the plan included introducing tools and support structures to
assist student.

Acting Once a plan was established and a tool or support structure was
identified, the action of the plan was translated into my actual
development of the appropriate tools or support structures to
address the challenge.

55
Vol. 72 | No. 9 | Sep 2016 International Scientific Researches Journal

Observing After the tool or support structure was developed, students

engaged with them. Their engagement occurred within the
formal lessons as well as outside these lessons. Feedback was
provided by the students on their use of the tool or support
structures at the end of each practical lesson by completing an
electronic questionnaire.

Reflecting Having gathered the data, a process of reflection occurred to

evaluate the students’ experience. These reflections were
analysed in an attempt to further improve and enhance the
student engagement. Based on the analysis, a re-planning phase
occurred, leading to other action research cycles.

Using an action research methodology in this study had many advantages. Firstly, action
research is a natural way of acting, learning and performing research at the same time. Secondly,
in the action research process, the researcher is not an outsider but is knowledgeable in the field
of study and an active participant in the research process. Thirdly, the action research process
can develop a critically reflective practice (Hubball & Burt, 2003). Fourthly, there is
considerable flexibility and awareness in the action research process (Dick, 2002). Finally, the
action research methodology supported the dual engagement process that occurred.

There were three main action research cycles, however, in a particular cycle, further smaller
action research cycles unfolded resulting in cycles within cycles. McNiff (1988, p. 45) drawing
from the work of Whitehead, indicates that this process can be “messy” having spirals within
spirals. Each tool and support structure developed underwent an action research process with
multiple cycles. A timeline similar to Figure 2 was used to illustrate the smaller cycles for each
tool and support structure.

56
Vol. 72 | No. 9 | Sep 2016 International Scientific Researches Journal

Figure 2: Action research cycle depicting time

Comments are also added to this figure to outline the action and reflection steps that occurred
during this process making it easier to understand how the tool or support structure transformed
over a specified period of time. However, it becomes difficult to illustrate these activities for
all the resources, making use of this diagram. As a result, a graph is presented later in the chapter
to visualise a holistically picture of all activities in one action research cycle.

Methodology
Engagement
Student engagement as given by Kuh et al. (2008) hinges on two components, firstly it is student
based and secondly it is linked to an institutional setting, which deals with the time and effort
that students spend on educational and other activities that lead to success. Student based factors
deal with habits, tasks, staff-student interaction and motivation (Eccles & Wigfield, 2002).
However, these factors are insufficient to encompass engagement since engagement deals with
factors such as academic activities and experiences, lecturer interactions, co-curricular
activities and peer collaboration (Eccles & Wigfield, 2002). Ivala and Kioko (2013) believe that
student engagement goes beyond the barriers of student and institutional interactions and they
argue that the socio-economic background and the language barriers within a South African
context plays an important role. All these factors have an impact on the dual engagement
between the lecturer and the student.

The process of dual engagement in this study played a vital role and was achieved with the
lecturer constantly developing tools and support structures and the students engaging by using

57
Vol. 72 | No. 9 | Sep 2016 International Scientific Researches Journal

them in an attempt to enhance their learning in computer programming. This dual form of
engagement between the lecturer and the student is represented in Figure3.

Figure 3: Dual engagement

In this dual engagement environment, students constantly provided feedback to the lecturer on
their experience in the BLE. Constant reflection was required by the lecturer to analyse the
comments and to enhance the tools and the support structures. In some instances, the analysis
led to the introduction of new tools and support structures. This form of engagement that
occurred was dynamic and constantly led to improvements and changes within the BLE. The
next section will describe the concept of feedback as utilised in this study.

Feedback
Ruddock (2006) indicated there has been an increase in perception regarding policy, practice
and research. Baumfield et al. (2013, p. 96) argue that “teachers are finding that all learners,
regardless of age, can have useful things to say about their experiences of the institution,
teaching and learning. However, we would argue that there is a need to make sure that the
process is truly authentic and to do this the process needs to be as transparent as possible”. They
further argue it is important to get the students perspective on the outcome and to open up a

58
Vol. 72 | No. 9 | Sep 2016 International Scientific Researches Journal

dialogue about the learning and teaching that occurs and provide a feedback loop as illustrated
in Figure4.

Figure 4: Feedback loop (Baumfield et al., 2013, p. 96)

Through the use of this feedback loop, refinements can take place to the environment in an
attempt to enhance the learning process.

Feedback is an important part of the education process (Clariana & Koul, 2006). During the
course of this study, feedback from students on the use of the tools and support structures played
an important role to understand their experience using these resources. Based on their
comments, refinements were made by the lecturer in an attempt to improve the resources.
Student feedback was obtained on the theory lesson, practical lesson and the support
environment aspects of the BLE, occurring after each lesson. An electronic questionnaire was
developed to capture the feedback from students and to produce reports to analyse the data.
This process of feedback played an important role to improve the BLE. Once the feedback was
received, the process of reflection was required for analysis.

59
Vol. 72 | No. 9 | Sep 2016 International Scientific Researches Journal

Reflection
Reflections by the lecturer and the student and are discussed. Firstly, the lecturer reflected
during the action research process in an attempt to improve the tools and support structures
developed and secondly reflection was required by the students to solve their tasks. They were
also expected to reflect on the BLE and provide feedback on their experience. Each of these
levels of reflection will be discussed.

By using an action research methodology, the researcher was constantly reflecting at each stage.
Selener (1997, p. 105) states that with action research, “change does not come about as a result
of spontaneous acts, but through reflection on and understanding of specific problems within
their social, political, and historical contexts”. Through the process of critical reflection, I was
able to explore and understand how and why the engagement occurred which was also
corroborated by Sankar, Bailey and Williams (2005).

Students were required to reflect on two issues. The first required reflection on their computer
programming tasks before implementing on computer. This process of reflection is considered
important in the learning process (Sugerman, Doherty, Garvey, & Gass, 2000). Through the
process of reflection, students can create new knowledge from existing knowledge (Sugerman
et al., 2000). Ertmer and Newby (1996) claim that students in computer programming do not
plan their solutions beforehand leading to bad techniques and resulting in a poor solution - a
problem that was observed during the course of this study. These authors recommend that
students be more reflective whilst planning their solutions. These comments are corroborated
by Schwartzman (2006) who argue that a reflective approach is required to eliminate the
confusion whilst solving a program, and to better understand how it should be solved. Within
the context of this study, I found that most students simultaneously planned, reflected and
implemented their solution, which was not an effective way of solving a task.

The second issue revolved around students reflecting on their use of the tools and support
structures before providing feedback to me as the lecturer. The feedback obtained helped me
as the lecturer to enhance the learning process. The next section presents my model of dynamic
engagement based on the ideas of engagement, feedback and reflection utilised in this study.

Findings and Analysis

In using an action research methodology, the basic framework of:

60
Vol. 72 | No. 9 | Sep 2016 International Scientific Researches Journal

PLAN  ACT  OBSERVE  REFLECT  REPLAN

as outlined by Lewin (1946), was employed at the start of the action research process. Whilst
this process is cyclic in nature, the steps involved are executed in a sequential manner, resulting
in the introduction of multiple cycles. Many different cyclic approaches of action and reflection
have been presented (Elliott, 1981; Kemmis & McTaggart, 1982; Ebbutt, 1985; McKernan,
1991). However, my representation of the action research process was most influenced by the
ideas outlined by McNiff (2013, p. 62) who states that these models “are sequential and
predictable” and argues that “they are potentially prescriptive and are disconnected from real-
life practices”. Instead, the model that she presents “aims to communicate dialogical processes
with infinite transformational processes appropriate to the emergent nature, fluidity and
unpredictability of practical living and the improvisatory knowledge base that underpins it” (p.
64). A graphical representation of this process is outlined in Figure5.

Figure 5: Generative transformational evolutionary process (McNiff, 2013, p. 66)

McNiff (2013, p. 67) outlines her ideas of this process:

I have come to see action research as a spontaneous, self-recreating system of enquiry.

I like the notion of a systematic process of observe, describe, plan, act, reflect, evaluate,
modify, but I do not see the process as sequential or necessarily rational. It is possible
to begin at one place and end up somewhere unexpected. The visual metaphor …
represents an iterative spiral of spirals, an exponential development process. I have
come to see the process as beyond words. While it may be analysed in terms of an action
research approach, I do not think it should be so confined. The spirals of action
reflection unfold from themselves and fold back again into themselves. They attempt to

61
Vol. 72 | No. 9 | Sep 2016 International Scientific Researches Journal

communicate the idea of a reality that enfolds all its previous manifestations, yet which
is constantly unfolding into new versions of itself, constantly in a state of balance within
disequilibrium. I am certain of uncertainty; I am balanced within my own
disequilibrium. In action research terms, it is possible to address multiple issues whilst
still maintaining a focus on one, a realisation of Plato’s idea of holding together the
one and the many.

The researchers agree with McNiff’s comments that the action research process is not sequential
and can contain smaller cycles within the larger action research cycles. However her illustration
is too general. She does however outline that “to propose that action research models can be
imposed on practice is to turn action research into a technology, an oppressive instrument that
can potentially distort other people’s creative practice. The best thing, perhaps, is for you to
create your own, to communicate metaphorically the way you live and learn” McNiff (2013, p.
64). For this study, a similar framework as presented by McNiff was utilised for the action
research process. Although she subscribes to a “systematic process of observe, describe, plan,
act, reflect, evaluate, modify”, a different sequence of events unfolded herein, which utilised a
process of plan, act, observe, and feedback, with the process of reflection forming a foundation
for each step. An illustration of this process, based on an extension of Lewin’s framework, is
depicted in Figure6.

62
Vol. 72 | No. 9 | Sep 2016 International Scientific Researches Journal

Figure 6: Action research cycle used in this study

This study started with reflection by the lecturer on the teaching and learning of computer
programming. Through the process of reflection, a problem was identified, that is the low pass
rate in this subject. Thereafter a plan was initiated to address this problem. The second stage
required action or engagement which deals with the execution of the plan by the lecturer. During
this phase the lecturer is required to constantly reflect on finding the best way to execute the
plan. The planning phase involved developing tools and support structures to enhance the BLE.
During the act phase, the lecturer constantly reflected on finding the best possible way to
execute the plan. Once the plan was executed, further reflection occurred by the lecturer to
determine the best possible way to observe the students whilst they engaged with the tools and
support structures. Once the student engagement started, the lecturer observed the students in
the theory and practical lesson. While the lecturer observed the students in the formal
environment, students also utilised the supporting materials outside of the formal lessons. As a
result, a feedback process was created where students provided comments on their experience

63
Vol. 72 | No. 9 | Sep 2016 International Scientific Researches Journal

in using the support materials. During the feedback process, students were expected to reflect
on the BLE and on their usage of the support materials before providing feedback.

The action research model introduced in this study used the process of plan, act, observe and
reflect. However, during the course of the study, a new process of feedback evolved, which
students constantly provided after each lesson. This repetitive feedback process was similar to
the feedback loop represented by Baumfield et al. (2013) in Figure6. Based on the feedback
obtained from students, further reflection was required by the lecturer which allowed two
options. The first option was a refinement process that resulted in returning to the act process.
Hence, smaller cycles were created within a larger action research cycle. McNiff (2013, p. 67)
introduces this notion of there being an action research cycle within cycles when she explains
that “it is possible to address multiple issues while still maintaining a focus on one”. In this
study, the creation of these secondary cycles was evident. When no refinements to the tools
were required, the option that emerged was to return to the plan phase, thereby creating a new
tool or support structure. In each of the action research steps, the process of reflection was a
common factor and served as a foundational aspect of the action research process.

Having presented models of the two main components of dual engagement and action research
used in this study, the final model is a culmination of these two models. The result is a novel
dynamic action research engagement model, as described above and illustrated in Figure 0.

64
Vol. 72 | No. 9 | Sep 2016 International Scientific Researches Journal

Figure 0: Dynamic action research engagement model

Whilst the findings in this study yielded important results, we believe the greatest contribution
lies in the methodology that was used. The process of action research with dual engagement
between the lecturer and student creates a dynamic engagement environment. With a base of
reflection and feedback, the dynamic environment can be refined and enhanced to improve the
learning experience of the student. From the lecturer’s point of view, a repository of tools can
be created and used each year in the learning process using this dynamic action research
engagement model. An evaluation of the learning process can take place each semester to
update and enhance the learning environment. In particular, the model created is flexible and is
not restricted to the field of computer programming.

Researchers Reflections
During the course of this study a number of ideas emerged that are worth highlighting. These
range from the approach used to my personal reflection and the dual engagement by the lecturer
and student. The customised software used proved to be a useful tool during the action research
approach. Students were able to provide feedback quickly and easily to a centralised database.

65
Vol. 72 | No. 9 | Sep 2016 International Scientific Researches Journal

Reports were available to extract summaries of the student feedback on a weekly basis and at
the click of a button. Furthermore, the software allowed me, as the lecturer and researcher to
keep a diary of comments, and grouped by category. Thereafter lecturer reports were generated
over a specified period of time grouped by a selected category. The analysis of the data obtained
from the reports was simplified with the categorisation of information.

We found the use of an action research methodology to be useful for a number of reasons. This
was our first experience using such a practice and we found it extremely valuable. Being
directly involved in the research, we were required to view the environment with an open mind,
in an attempt to make improvements. In particular, the feedback process was of great
importance in such a dynamic environment. As academics, we have always understood the
importance of receiving feedback from students, however, this was usually conducted at the
end of each semester. Now, we are of the opinion that feedback needs to occur on a more regular
basis.

Furthermore, having utilised an action research process, we see the process of reflection from
a new perspective. It has taught us the importance of finding time to reflect on our actions
frequently and to identify innovative ways of improving the environment. The practice of
reflection is seen as insufficient in my current environment, which now requires a reflexive
practice.

Conclusion
In computer programming, a major concern is the low pass rate of first year students. In South
Africa, the poor Mathematics and Science results further hampers students passing in computer
programming. This study interrogated the engagement between the lecturer and the student to
examine a BLE through the use of an action research approach.

The data was the engine to developing a further contribution, to action research, and resulted in
a novel, dynamic action research model. Three core components within the dual engagement
approach were found to be engagement with examples and visual materials, support, as well as
planning. The dual engagement approach contributes to a more holistic way of addressing the
above mentioned concern, as it takes into consideration both student and lecturer perspectives,
with constant refinement or development of new resources.

66
Vol. 72 | No. 9 | Sep 2016 International Scientific Researches Journal

As the action research process methodology progressed, the three core components gradually
took on a new form, namely, engagement, feedback and reflection. This gave rise to the
dynamic dual engagement action research model. This model is underpinned by reflection,
which sustains the action research process.

The model is of benefit to both the student and lecturer in a variety of ways. The student
becomes empowered through an enhanced and supportive learning experience. Accordingly,
students are afforded the opportunity to produce better results. The good pass rate is mutually
beneficially to the student and lecturer. The lecturer benefits through an improved sense of
accomplishment and it builds the relationship with their students through a more interactive
process. Moreover, the model allows for adaptation to the changing needs of the student thereby
enhancing the quality of learning.

References

Baumfield, V., Hall, E., & Wall, K. (2013). Action research in education (2nd ed.). Sage Publications.

Brookfield, S. (2000). The concept of critical reflective practice. In Handbook of adult and continuing
education (33-49). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Carr, W., & Kemmis, S. (1986). Becoming Critical: education, knowledge and action research.
Lewes, Falmer.

Charles, L., & Ward, N. (2007). Generating Change through research: Action Research and its
implications (No. 10).

Clariana, R. B., & Koul, R. (2006). The effects of different forms of feedback on fuzzy and verbatim
memory of science principles. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 76, 259–270.

Clark, P. A. (1972). Action research and organizational change, Harper and Row, London.

Dick, B. (2002). Postgraduate programs using action research. The Learning Organization, 9(4), 159–
170.

Ebbutt, D. (1985). Educational Action Research: some general concerns and specific quibbles. Issues
in Educational Research: Qualitative Methods. Lewes, Falmer, (Burgess, R. (ed)).

Eccles, J. S., & Wigfield, A. (2002). Motivational beliefs, values, annd goals. Annual Review of
Psychology, 53, 109–132.

Elden, M., & Chisholm, R. F. (1993). Emerging varieties of action research: introduction to the special
issue. Human Relations, 46(2), 121–142.

67
Vol. 72 | No. 9 | Sep 2016 International Scientific Researches Journal

Elliott, J. ( 1981 ) Action Research; framework for self evaluation in schools, TIQL working
paper No. 1, mimeo (Cambridge Institute of Education)

Ertmer, P. A., & Newby, T. J. (1996). The expert learner: strategic, self-regulated and reflective.
Instructional Science, 24, 1–24.

Greenwood, D. J., & Levin, M. (1998). Introduction to action research: social research for social
change. SAGE Publications, Thousand Oaks, California.

Hakim, C. (2000). Research Design: Successful designs for social and economic research. New York:
Routledge.

Hubball, H., & Burt, H. (2003). Action Research: Investigating curricular, teaching and learning. In
Enhancing collaborative learning in a blended learning environment: Applying a process
planning model, Nel, L. & Wilkinson, A., (2006), Syst Pract Act Res 19, 553–576

Ivala, E., & Kioko, J. (2013). Student levels of engagement in learning : A case study of Cape
Peninsula University of Technology (CPUT). Perspectives in Education, 31(2), 123–134.

Lisle, A. M. (2010). Reflexive practice - dialectic encounter in psychology and education. Xlibris
Corporation.

Kemmis, S., & McTaggart, R. (1982). The action research planner. Victoria, Deakin University Press.

Kuh, G. D., Cruce, T. M., Shoup, R., Kinzie, J., & Gonyea, R. M. (2008). Unmasking the effects of
student engagement on the first-year college grades and persistence. The Journal of Higher
Education, 79(5), 540–563.

Lewin, K. (1946). Action research and minority problems. Journal of Social Issues, 2, 34–46.

McAteer, M. (2013). Action Research in Education. Sage Publications.

McKernan. (1991). Curriculum Action Research: a handbook of methods and resources for the
reflective practitioner. London: Kogan Page.

McNiff, J. (1988). Action research: principles and practice. Basingstoke, Macmillan.

McNiff, J. (2013). Action research - principles and practice (3rd ed.). Routledge.

McNiff, J., & Whitehead, J. (2009). Doing and writing action research. SAGE Publications, Thousand
Oaks, California.

Ruddock, J. (2006). The past, the papers and the project (Editorial). Educational Review, 58(2), 131–
143.

Sankar, M., Bailey, R., & Williams, B. (2005). Doing action research. Community Economic
Development Action Research (CEDAR) Project. New Zealand: Department of Labour.
Retrieved on 23 October 2014 from
http://www.massey.ac.nz/massey/fms/Colleges/College%20of%20Business/Communication%20

68
 Vol. 72 | No. 9 | Sep 2016 International Scientific Researches Journal

and%20Journalism/Literacy/Publications/Action_Research_Reflections.pdf?A29032502C0118C
4A017245B9095FC1A.

Schwartzman, L. (2006). A qualitative analysis of reflective and defensive student responses in

software engineering and design course. Proceedings of the 6th Baltic Sea Conference on
Computing Education Research, February 1, Uppsala, Sweden.

Selener, D. (1997). Participatory action research and social change. New York: Cornell Participatory
Action Research Network.

Steier, F. (1991). Reflexivity and Methodology: An Ecological Constructionism. (163-185). In Steier,

F. Research and Reflexivity. London: Sage Publications.

Stenhouse, L. (1975). An introduction to curriculum research and development. London, Heinemann.

Sugerman, D. A., Doherty, K. L., Garvey, D. E., & Gass, M. A. (2000). Reflective learning: theory
and practice. Dubuque, Iowa: Kendall/Hunt.

Walter-Adams, S. (2006). Action research in education. Retrieved on 7 February 2014 from

http://www.edu.plymouth.ac.uk/resined/actionresearch/arhome.htm.

Whitehead, J. (1989). Creating a living educational theory from questions of the kind, “How do I
improve my practice?.” Cambridge Journal of Education, 19(1), 37–41.

Williams, M., & May, T. (1996). Introduction to the philosophy of social research. London: UCL
Press Limited. W.

Winter, R. (1987). Action-research and the nature of social inquiry: professional innovation and
education work. England: Gower Publishing Company.

69

View publication stats