Procedures of Action Research


An action research study begins with an observation of a situation that raises some questions regarding a gap between the intention and the practice (Kumar,2005). In addressing such situations, the teachers need to develop some personal assumptions which is the real start of the action research process. Observation in a situation demands an inquiry that leads to a guiding question for research purposes. During the action research which I conducted, followed the procedures of action research such as identifying a problem, reconnaissance, planning, taking the first action step, evaluating, amending the plan, and taking the second action step as suggested by (Lewin cited in Smith, 2001).
Identification of the problem area or initial idea
The starting point of an action research process is the identification of the problem area or a general idea. In my action research, I identified the problem of understanding geometry involving proving theorems in secondary school classes. In fact, it was my own experience that I hardly understood the theorems to prove during my school life. Some students I found complained that theorems in geometry were difficult to prove in secondary classes. A careful investigation was needed at the first stage of my research to state the problem in simple language, concise and meaningful (Gay & Airasian, 2003).
Reconnaissance or fact-finding 
Before deciding on any action to take, the collection of data is an important step to find facts about the problem or issues to be studied. According to Burns (2000), there are many sources to collect data such as observation in a specific context, interviews, questionnaires, test records, samples of students' work, and reflective journals.
In my action research, I observed the teaching and learning process for some days in a mathematics classroom where one of my colleague mathematics teachers taught proving theorems in geometry.  I completed a checklist in each lesson while observing students’ responses during the teaching and learning process to investigate the research problem. In the checklist, I used a scale of 1-5 for each response where 1 was used for less than 5 students, 2 for 6-10 students, 3 for 11-15 students, 4 for 16-25 students and 5 used to show more than 25 students out of 33 students. All three completed checklists provided the information regarding the problem as follows.
The teacher used the lecture method to teach theorems in three lessons and provided opportunities for the students to share their ideas with their colleagues. From the analysis of the checklists completed during three lessons, I found that less than 5 students out of 33 students discussed some points with each other when the teacher asked them to share their learning in their pairs. The rest of the students were quiet looking at the teacher’s proved theorem on the blackboard. During an informal discussion, I asked a mathematics teacher in the school about the reason for the lack of sharing ideas among the students. The reason I found this was that the students do not clearly understand geometrical concepts in middle classes.
The students did not provide any response which showed their prior knowledge and command over the concepts involved in the theorems. Analysis of the checklist revealed that the on the teacher’s instruction to solve the theorem on the blackboard during the presentation stage of the lesson, less than 5 students proved a part of the theorem individually on the blackboard or in their notebooks. The comments which I gave in the checklist during observation in three lessons indicated that not a single response was observed among the students regarding their prior knowledge and its application in current learning of proving theorems. The filled checklist showed that fewer than 5 students showed responses to agree or disagree with the arguments of each other through examples to clarify their misconceptions.
The gathered evidence indicated that the actual cause of the problem was the students’ low level of understanding of geometry. After finding the problem at the grassroots level I planned to address the problem in my action research process.   
Planning
I designed a plan of action after the fact-finding stage that allowed me to take action steps in the classroom to address the problem. The action plan included the selection of the procedures, choice of materials, resources, teaching methods, and allocations of tasks. While planning for my action research I discussed with the head teacher, another mathematics teacher, and the staff of the school regarding time, resources, and suggestions during the process. Burns (2000) emphasizes discussions and negotiations with the teachers, principals, and supervisors regarding the actions to be taken in the situation. This helps the teachers who undertake action research to improve their performance through the influences of participants on planned activities during the research process.
Taking the first action step
I planned to start my actions to increase the students’ level of content in geometry because insufficient content among the students at this level caused poor performance in the classroom situation (Chissick, 2004). Therefore improvement of students’ level of content in geometry started by enabling them to recognize and analyze the geometrical figures (Heile, as cited in Pegg, 2001; Siddiqui, 2005).
Evaluation of the results
The effects of the intervention were assessed to determine the improvements that occurred in the teaching and learning process. Ferrance (2000) stated that positive changes are judged on the basis of the supporting evidence which is provided by the data.
The evaluation was the final stage where the procedure of action research was completed. In my research study, the evaluation of actions and their effects was carried out on the basis of data gathered through observation, pre and post-test, and my reflective journal.