research
Considering Participatory Action Research: Centering Dialogue in Music
Learning and Teaching Jesse Rathgeber, WMEA State Chair, Research
Designing engag- ing, personalized, meaningful and re- sponsive experienc- es in which learners are both supported and challenged re- quires a great deal of observable and hidden labor. This
labor is dialogical in that it involves not just the bodymind and will of the teacher. Rather, the labor is an intricate, active and consistently evolving conversation among and between learners, teacher(s), content /subject matter and both the school/local and broader socio-cultural contexts (Buber, 1958; Schwab, 1973). On an average day, this dialogic dance often fades into the background as teachers attempt to not only do their pedagogical and curricular duties, but also take on increasing administrative responsibilities, act as substitute teachers for other subjects and take on many other roles. Challenges to embracing dialogue are compounded when conceptions of social, political and economic stability are challenged. In such times, making dialogue not only observable but also central in our practices can provide ways to foster/sustain connections, build inclusive classrooms and support the learning and success of all learners whose backgrounds, identities and needs are complex.
Action Research and Participatory Action Research
Action research involves researchers inves- tigating in their own contexts using cycles of inquiry and direct action (Cain, 2008). This approach to inquiry is well-suited for music educators and is similar to what we do day to day as we try out new approaches, assess their impact and make alterations to practice. Participatory action research (PAR) operates on ethical commitments
40
to de-privilege the point of view of a sole researcher – such as a teacher – to center perspectives, voices and wonderments of those who would otherwise be the subjects or participants of a research study (Ber- gold & Thomas, 2012; Kincheloe, 2009; McIntyre, 2007). This approach identifies all who participate in a given context as co- researchers – as collaborators rather than as test subjects – democratizing, diversifying and demystifying scholarship as an action for and by all.
Taking on a PAR-based approach to learn- ing and teaching brings the dialogical dance that is ever-present, if obscured, to the forefront. It centers the knowledges, skills, understandings, identities and ways of knowing and being of learners and/or community members. A music teacher becomes both a co-researcher and co- participant, collaborating with learners and community members. Some examples of music education scholarship using a PAR- based approach include:
• Constructing pathways for engaging with indigenous musical approaches (Chan & Saidon, 2020)
• Developing relevant and meaningful music curricula (Erickson, 2012)
• Investigating teaching processes us- ing action songs (Kalinde, 2022)
• Building online music learning resources (Schmidt-Jones, 2020)
Getting Started with a Participatory Action Inquiry Project
Taking on a PAR-based approach to music learning and teaching might involve the following steps:
1. Develop a community of co- researchers/co-participants. This might be a single class, a whole school, or
a mixed group of learners, teachers and community members. Ensure there are ways for all members to be full participants who consent to participating from the start. Construct mechanisms to help ensure that one voice, even that of the teacher, does not control the inquiry. There are many other issues of research ethics wrapped up here, so be certain to discuss your project with administrators and consult PAR resources.
2. Identify research questions that point to a shared aim. Generate questions as a community and seek themes before establishing a handful of guiding questions.
3. Develop a method for generating data. What data is needed to answer the questions: journaling, surveys, transcribed discussions? Identify the “what” with regard to data and then consider ways to most ethically generate and collect that data collaboratively.
4. Build relationships and trust among the community throughout. Find ways to level communication pathways. Continue to ask critical questions about authority, power and positionality to best center the collective perspectives (see Hess, 2018; Kincheloe, 2009).
5. Develop a cycle of “try this,” “reflect on that” and “now try this” in which the community develops practices for the contexts, tries out practices, critically reflects on practices, and then redevelops the practices.
6. Collaboratively review and reflect upon the data, the relationship building, and the meaning of the inquiry at the end of the project.
April 2025
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52 |
Page 53 |
Page 54 |
Page 55 |
Page 56 |
Page 57
