http://www.sandiego.edu/soles/documents/ARLAnalyticDiscourseandthePFR by University of San Diego, School of Leadership and Education Sciences

The Action Research Papers – Center for Student Support Systems (CS3) Collaborative Action Research and the USD Model: The Analytic Dialogue and Completing the Problem Formulation Report

Lonnie Rowell, Ph.D. October 2008

Following up on the reflective interview: The analytic dialogue After you have completed the Reflective Interview Report you need to share it with the practitioner partner and schedule another meeting time for completion of an analytic dialogue. This dialogue builds on the findings of the reflective interview and helps finalize the focus of the collaborative action research. The steps to follow in conducting the analytic dialogue are described in Sagor (pp. 14-16). What follows is a description of our use of this event in the USD action research model. The analytic dialogue is another technique in the problem formulation stage of action research. We use this technique following the reflective interview. All members of the action research team participate in the analytic dialogue, although most often the team leader, or a designated member of the research team, facilitates the event. Two to three practitioners are included in this activity as well as the lead practitioner partner. The involvement of several practitioners helps build interest in and support for the action research project. The analytic dialogue is described in Sagor (1992) as a “new and invigorating experience” (p. 15) for most practitioners. It not only helps clarify issues that are being considered for action research but enhances collegiality among practitioners and between practitioners and the participating graduate students. In the USD model, the analytic dialogue is another opportunity for the graduate students to interact with practitioners through a supportive and educational experience. The dialogue event facilitates further clarity regarding the focus of the action research project and helps build solidarity among the practitioners and graduate students. Results from the analytic dialogue are included in the PFR. To help readers understand how this technique works, I include two examples of experience with analytic dialogue.

Page 1

The Action Research Papers – Center for Student Support Systems (CS3) Example #1. Recently, we conducted an action research project with counselors at Ranch High School (a pseudonym), one of the schools in a large suburban high school district. The names of practitioners have been changed in this example. Here is what the team reported in their PFR: We then contacted Sarah to set a date and time to meet for the analytic dialogue. The goal of the analytic dialogue was to discuss and verify our findings, receive any additional and pertinent information, narrow the focus of the project, and formulate the research question(s). At the beginning of the meeting, we presented Sarah with the agenda for the discussion in order to establish organization and direction for the work to be done. After this, we gave Sarah a list of proposed guidelines for action research, so she could better understand our purpose at Ranch. We made sure to stress the importance of impact in action research. We wanted to ensure that the issue(s) chosen can have an effect on and, in the end, strengthen the counseling program at Ranch. After Sarah expressed her understanding of the guidelines for action research, we presented the five themes that emerged from the coding of the reflective interview. Having given her a chance to read them, we continued with the discussion questions that we had formulated prior to the meeting. We strategically planned the flow of questioning with the intent to narrow the focus of the project and establish a solid direction that we all could be confident about. From her feedback during the discussion, we established that two of the five themes had the greatest significance for the counselors at Ranch and that they fit well within the guidelines for action research. After discussing possibilities for the focus of our research, we decided that a program evaluation would best address these issues. Our evaluation will address the perceptions, support, and understanding of the counseling program, while helping us determine what the counselors at Ranch are doing in comparison to

Page 2

The Action Research Papers – Center for Student Support Systems (CS3) what they should be doing according to National Standards for School Counseling Programs. Example #2. Here is another example. We have worked with elementary counselors in a suburban K-8 school district for several years now. This is some of what our 2003-2004 team reported regarding their experience with the PFR (names also have been changed): The first step in completing the problem formulation was to have reflective interviews with two of the elementary counselors. In the interviews, we asked questions pertaining to their views of the district’s elementary counseling program. Through the interviews, we were able to get a better understanding of the issues that are affecting the district’s elementary counseling program. Our next step was to complete the analytical dialogue. This meeting consisted of the graduate student team, Martha Albert (our practitioner partner), and two other elementary counselors in the district. The first step in preparing for the analytical dialogue was to contact Martha, Julie Long, and Cindy Turner to set up a day and time that they could all meet with us. When we met for the analytical dialogue the action research team sat in a circle and briefly shared with Martha the issues that had emerged in the reflective interviews along with what we have come to understand are the critical issues facing the elementary counselors in the district. This process lasted about 30 minutes. As we spoke, Martha, Julie and Cindy listened to the issues we had identified through the reflective interview. When we finished presenting our summary and discussing it with Martha, we asked the other two counselors for feedback about what they saw and heard during our discussion. We also discussed the graphic representation our team had completed. The reflective interview and the analytic dialogue are rather unique tools in school counseling research. At present, the vast majority of school counselors would say that they have never heard of either term. Some will think these procedures sound a bit formal, overly abstract, and too intellectual. Nevertheless, at USD our experience has been that when encouraged to try them and supported throughout the process, school counselors find it worthwhile to be Copyright © 2008 Center for Student Support Systems (CS3)

Page 3

The Action Research Papers – Center for Student Support Systems (CS3) challenged to approach their work from a scientific-critical perspective and appreciate the interest and support that comes with being a part of an action research team. From the graduate student perspective, results from the analytic dialogue event are included in the final assignment for the problem formulation stage of the collaborative action research. This assignment is called the Problem Formulation Report (PFR). The PFR is described in the section that follows. Completing a Problem Formulation Report (PFR) In the USD model, the Problem Formulation Report, or PFR, is a major assignment for the action research teams. We use the PFR to document the outcomes of each step taken in formalizing a project. Thus, each team completes the Problem Formulation Report based on data from the observations, reflective interview, analytic dialogue, and any other steps taken in preparation for conducting the collaborative action research project. The PFR establishes that a team has found its starting point for a project and marks the end of the problem formulation stage of the action research process. The process of completing the PFR unfolds over the first two months of the semester as each team begins to interact with its assigned practitioner partner or partners. The PFR is a 15-20 page report addressing the team’s experience of the problem formulation stage of action research. The report has six sections. Each section is described below. Sections in the PFR Introduction. The introduction should be no more than one page. This section explains the nature of the report, and briefly summarizes the background to the project and the rationale for the USD-school district collaboration in action research. Background. This section of the PFR should be 4-5 pages. Here you need to provide some local background and place the problem your team is investigating into a larger context of school counseling. The background describes the tentative research problem and the rationale for the project. You need to make reference to the literature you are reading for the course (texts) as well as a minimum of two new sources. The sources used should be journal articles based on empirical research conducted within the past 5-8 years. References are to be cited using APA format (current edition).

Page 4

The Action Research Papers – Center for Student Support Systems (CS3) Some of the contexts relevant to the action research projects include: (a) Developments at the school site (e.g. a school wants to know if the peer mediation program they have been using for the last nine years is working well); (b) Developments within a district (e.g. a district’s counseling program has not been evaluated for many years); (c) Efforts to reorganize, transform, reform, upgrade, redirect, etc. school counseling programs in light of the larger school reform efforts taking place all around the country (e.g. a district counseling and guidance administrator’s efforts to better connect the work of school counselors with the district’s commitment to improve student literacy.) Included here would be efforts to incorporate the National Standards and the National Model into a district’s or a school site’s counseling program. The background section of the PFR locates the problem within the larger literature of school counseling and describes the situation at the school site in relationship to select themes in the literature. Although we are most concerned with strengthening the practice of school counseling locally, the research project must have a solid rationale that links local practice with larger issues in the practice of school counseling. The background section demonstrates your understanding that the problem being investigated may have been investigated by others, and that there is some research literature we can look to that will help inform us in our investigation. The rationale for basic research often includes mostly theoretical findings from previous research. However, in action research the rationale includes both problems found in practice as well as references to a theoretical framework that can be found in the literature based on previous empirical work. The background section of the PFR addresses these issues. Sagor’s (1992) and Robson’s (2002) discussions of research problem statements and research questions will be helpful in developing your team’s ideas for this section as well as for the research question section. Research question. The research question(s) section should be no more than one page. This section helps make sure the team (including our practitioner partner) is clear about what is being investigated and why this project is being conducted. As Sagor (1992) puts it, “you don’t want to wander aimlessly” (p. 25). Your research question or questions should be tentative at this point. Do not think that you have to have the question completely clarified at this juncture in the project. The research question presented in the PFR is what we might call a first approximation. Hopefully, this takes away a bit of the pressure many of you will feel as you struggle to figure Copyright © 2008 Center for Student Support Systems (CS3)

Page 5

The Action Research Papers – Center for Student Support Systems (CS3) out just what the research focus should be. For others, the practitioner partner will know exactly what she or he wants to explore, will already have discussed this with colleagues at the site, and will be ready to begin planning how to conduct the project. Methodology in problem formulation. This section should be 5-6 pages. Here you describe the procedures you have followed in formulating the research question(s). Provide a description of the procedures used in completing the observations, reflective interview and analytic dialogue. Describe the steps taken in formulating the tentative research focus. Be concrete and specific with this description. This section should tie in with a graphic/diagrammatic representation of the issue to be investigated. Graphic/Diagrammatic representation. You also need to complete a graphic representation of a conceptual framework that will guide your inquiry. See Robson’s (2002) discussion of conceptual frameworks (pp.63-64) and Sagor’s (1992) description of graphic representations (pp. 16-22) for further information regarding this requirement. In general, the graphic/diagrammatic representation can be presented in one page. Appendices. The PFR also includes 6-8 pages of appendices. Add the following appendices to your report: (a) Agenda for the Reflective Interview event; (b) List of questions used in the reflective interview; (c) a description and summary of the analytic dialogue event. Label each appendix at the top of the page, centered (e.g. Appendix A, Appendix B, etc.). Under the label, centered on the page, place the title of the Appendix (such as Reflective Interview Questions, etc.). Technical requirements for the PFR: Length. The PFR should be no more than 15-20 typed, double-spaced pages (not counting the Cover Sheet and appendices). Font. Use 12 point font. Cover Sheet. Use a cover sheet for your PFR that contains the following elements: a. At the top of the page: COUN 508

FALL 200_

b. In the center of the page: Problem Formulation Report (PFR) for (name of your action research project team – e.g. “Valhalla High School,” or “La Mesa-Spring Valley Elementary Counseling”) Copyright © 2008 Center for Student Support Systems (CS3)

Page 6

The Action Research Papers – Center for Student Support Systems (CS3) c. At the bottom of the page: Team members’ names in an order determined by the team* * You may want to list the names alphabetically, or put the team leader’s name first, or put the name of the person who did most of the actual PFR writing first. Whatever choice you make, you need to decide as a group. The significance of the “first author” will be discussed in class. Concluding note Follow the steps outlined above and you should have a solid report to turn in. Make sure you proof the report before you turn it in, as excessive grammatical and spelling errors will result in lowering of the points awarded for this assignment. The points for the report are given to all team members. So, you may want to be sure that each team member has looked over the final draft before the paper is actually turned in.

Page 7