LIBR 285 – Dr. Somerville
Action Research Proposal
Self-Reflection Essay
Patricia Ayame Thomson

A dynamic paradigm shift occurred during my profound inculcation of Participatory Action Research (PAR) philosophies, resulting in a Kafkaesque metamorphosis. The transformation in thinking is due to what McNiff & Whitehead (2009) describe as “higher-order questioning” and is one of the “main characteristics of action research” (p. 17). Higher-order thinking is a concept of Educational reform advocating that: “skills involving analysis, evaluation, and synthesis (creation of new knowledge) are thought to be of a higher order, requiring different learning and teaching methods, than the learning of facts and concepts” (Wikipedia). Additionally, enhanced learning in action research is a cyclical process and is part of a continuum for all participants involved in the project. A significant practice of investigation and self-analysis in action research is described in Dr. Somerville’s (2013) words as: “In an iterative fashion, this process is often times begun again, as the researcher aims to continue to improve his or her practice” (lecture p. ). Also, critical thinking is “the learning of complex judgmental skills,” and is taught “sometimes deliberately omitting direct instruction of traditional methods, facts, or knowledge” (Wikipedia). Thus, the depth of the inculcation is a result of having to arrive at the understanding from deep inside of myself, instead of the professor providing me with direct and easy answers.

Regarding my misconceptions, I misunderstood the statement: “Also consider Creswell’s suggestions for structuring various methodology sections” (Somerville, 2013). After completing the required reading, I became confused with Creswell’s (2014) description of a myriad ways to format the research proposal, depending on the use of quantitative and/or qualitative mixed methodologies. In hindsight, I realize Dr. Somerville clearly provided instructions, including the explicit order of required headings, as well as examples of previous students’ research proposals during the second week. The most significant disconnect occurred between my synthesis of the course material and the application of action research practices in the course itself. In other courses, the extent of my participation as a student is merely to show synthesis of the given information, and try to apply what I learned in the future, after the course is completed. On the other hand, I have never had the experience of integrating the knowledge provided in the course and directly applying the information to the assignment itself. Much to my chagrin, it took a long time for me to understand that I am encouraged to engage in a collaborative process with Dr. Somerville in order to improve my research proposal. In this instance, ideas from my cultural upbringing in Japan called “enryo,” which means reserve, precaution, or foresight not to intrude prevented me from initiating and maintaining contact with Dr. Somerville. I thought to myself, I should not bother the professor on a daily basis and expect her to do my work. Even the kind invitations to help revise our papers did not override my traditional thinking. Finally, it dawned on me that Dr. Somerville was applying the practice to enhance learning as a practitioner, as well as all the students describing that: “action research also enriches professional practice and improves a real situation”. “A standards-based system measures each student against the concrete standard. Curriculum, assessments, and professional development are aligned to the standards” (Wikipedia). Once I understood the concept that I am expected to participate in the collaboration, I began to submit my proposal to the professor and the writing significantly improved with every exchange or iteration. Additionally, brevity and conciseness is a challenge but also a crucial element especially in professional communication and essential especially for researcher asking support for their research.