This is a pre-print version of Cain, T.

(2008) The characteristics of action research

in music education. British Journal of Music Education, 25, (3), 283-313.

Abstract

This review article discusses the use of action research in music education, its

potential for producing knowledge and improving practice. This is situated in an

analysis of action research studies in music education. The review demonstrates that

action research in music education focuses on a wide variety of subject matter,

integrates research and action, is collaborative, grounded in a body of existing

knowledge, and leads to powerful learning for the participants. However, few action

research projects are cyclical, deal with aspects of social transformation, or broad

historical, political or ideological contexts, and there is little focus on reflexivity. The

review suggests that, in order to undertake high-quality action research, researchers

need a good understanding of action research, a focused use of research literature and

a defensible position with regard to data analysis and the generation of trustworthy

findings.

Action research

I first encountered action research as a Secondary school teacher, on a part-time

diploma course, during which we were challenged to focus on a series of our lessons

in detail. Reflecting on each lesson we were required to ask, ‘What did the pupils do?’

‘What did they learn?’ ‘How worthwhile was it?’ ‘What did I do?’ ‘What did I learn?’

and ‘What will I do next?’ I audio-recorded and transcribed lessons on the music of

Messiaen, Schoenberg and Harrison Birtwistle, which the pupils found difficult to

understand, and planned each lesson in the light of the answers about the previous

lesson. Towards the end of the course we presented summaries of our learning to the

1
whole group; I explained how I had developed my views of teaching, resulting in a

less didactic, more practical approach.

Later I discovered that this process was a form of action research, which is

usually conceptualised as research which is undertaken by practitioners into their own

practice, in order to improve it (Elliott, 1991). Practitioners (such as teachers) decide

what is worth researching, carry out research and thereby become research-informed.

Action research is sometimes contrasted with more traditional methods in which

knowledge production is the job of researchers:

The social sciences position researchers as spectators of other people’s practices,

in the sense that they produce explanations for the practices and influences of

others . . . In action research however the individual practitioner researches their

own practice. (McNiff & Whitehead, 2005: 161)

Action research is thus associated with the terms ‘teacher research’ (Lytle & Cochran-

Smith, 1992) ‘practitioner research’ (Middlewood et al., 1999) and ‘Self-study’

(Loughran, 2005). It is used in fields where it is helpful to integrate research with

action, and is essentially practical in nature.

Although there are various models of action research it is possible to

generalise about what it is, how, and why it is done. Its process has been encapsulated

in various models, which are usually variations of a plan – act – evaluate – reflect

cycle, first described by Lewin in the 1940’s and since elaborated in many different

ways (e.g. Elliott, 1991, 70-71; McNiff, 1988: 21-46, Zuber-Skerritt, 1996: 99).

Educational action research can begin with practitioners asking, ‘how do I improve

my practice?’ (Whitehead, 1989). In seeking answers, they investigate their own

practice, plan and carry out interventions to improve it and evaluate the intended and

2
unintended consequences of these interventions, interrogating data in order to ground

their evaluations in evidence. They reflect on each stage in order to generate new

plans, thus starting the cycle again. As Harris (2000) says,

In many respects this is a natural extension of a teacher’s professionalism, one

where reflection and development of one’s practice is crucial. Action research,

though, takes this further by combining theory and practice in a powerful way.

It is practical in the sense that it is based in one’s own needs and is designed to

improve one’s practice, but it is also underpinned by educational theory and …

extensive and focused data gathering. (p. 65)

On our diploma course the questions, ‘what did I do?’ ‘What did the pupils do?’ and

‘What did they learn?’ required us to consider our actions and the consequences for

the pupils. The question, ‘How worthwhile was it?’ prompted us to evaluate these

consequences. The question, ‘What did I learn?’ helped us to reflect and consider

changes to our teaching, whilst the final question prompted us to re-start the action

research cycle.

Because action research positions practitioners as constructing their own

knowledge it is seen as a democratic process; a ‘grass-roots movement’ (Ormell,

2000). The aims of action research are frequently political, to do with attaining greater

social justice for the participants and the people they serve, and it is sometimes used

to challenge unjust systems and practices in organisations, including schools. Action

research processes are often collaborative; people working together, in a democratic

process, to effect change. Somekh (2006) provides a useful summary of action

research by summarising the ‘methodological principles’ that underpin her ‘broad,

inclusive definition’ of the process. For her, action research:

3
 (1) ‘integrates research and action (1a) in a series of flexible cycles’

(2) ‘is conducted by a collaborative partnership of participants and researchers’

(3) ‘involves the development of knowledge and understanding of … change

and development in a natural (as opposed to contrived) social situation’

(4) ‘starts from a vision of social transformation and aspirations of greater social

justice for all’

(5) ‘involves a high level of reflexivity and sensitivity to the role of the self’

(6) ‘involves exploratory engagement with a wide range of existing knowledge’

(7) ‘engenders powerful learning for participants’

(8) ‘locates the enquiry in an understanding of broader historical, political and

ideological contexts’ (Somekh, 2006, pp. 6-8, numbers not in original)

Educational action research has had a considerable growth in popularity during its

sixty-year history. However, in a major review of music education research, Rideout

& Feldman (2002) reported that, ‘action research has had little impact on research in

music education and music student teaching even though its potential contributions

were expounded 30 years ago’ (p. 882). In the same review Leglar & Collay (2002)

noted a recent ‘considerable interest’ in action research from music educators, saying,

Because the methodology [of action research] is quite complex, practitioners

often undertake their first action research projects to fulfil the requirements for a

graduate degree. Several general music teachers have reported that conducting

research had a profound effect on their practice – which is the primary goal of

action research. (p. 868)

4
Previous reviews of action research in music education

Previous reviews have related action research to other educational endeavours and

have typically cited a small number of studies to illustrate the characteristics of action

research. Regelski (1995) contended that music teaching is conducted largely, ‘on the

basis of past practice, recipe teaching, and passing fads’ (p. 65). He argued that action

research, underpinned by critical theory, can challenge teachers by uncovering their

false consciousness and misplaced faith in common-sense teaching, providing ‘a new

and disciplined basis for the rational critique of current practices, ideals and rationales

of music education’ as well as, ‘facilitat(ing) change through a systematic, scientific

process’ (p. 64). Regelski did not consider actual reports of action research but based

his argument on philosophical writings, including Lewin (1946) and Carr & Kemmis

(1986). Gifford (1997) compared action research with action learning (in which

people study their own actions and experience in order to maximise their learning and

improve their performance) and conceptualised action research as including action

learning but being, ‘more deliberate, systematic and rigorous and is made public’ (p.

113). Gifford (1997) was presented at a conference, alongside three presentations of

action research by post-graduate students. For reasons of space these were not

included in the conference proceedings, and Gifford did not comment on them

directly, but outlined a model for a prospective action research project.

Roulston et al. (2006) situated action research within a qualitative paradigm,

stressing its participatory nature and citing Miller’s (1996; 2004) studies as examples.

Bresler (1996) also situated action research within a family of applied qualitative

approaches. She located the roots of such approaches in the first known music

pedagogy book (published in 1717), in which ‘Francois Couperin expressed

pedagogical assertions based on extensive observations of student behaviour’. Bresler

(1996) argued that, ‘through action research we learn about the processes of

5
improvement in music instruction’ (p. 5) and described Miller’s (1996) doctoral thesis

by way of illustration. A more extended exploration of the subject (Bresler,

1995/2006) compared the questions, methods and findings that are characteristic of

action research with those of ethnography and phenomenology, and characterised

action research questions as ‘practical, local, how-to issues, directly concerned with

improving a specific classroom practice’. Although she saw action research as

operating within a qualitative paradigm, Bresler (1995/2006) noted that it can also

involve quantitative methods, and described findings as leading to, ‘deep(er)

understandings of the operational and experienced curriculum and … changes in

teaching’ (p. 21). She pointed out that, ‘Because the act of teaching is intense, energy

consuming and oriented toward doing as opposed to reflecting, the perspective of an

outsider often proves extremely helpful’ (p. 19) and cited Soby (1989) as an

illustrative example of action research. Each of these reviews explained the value of

action research and related this to music education. However, because the actual

reports they refer to were illustrative, they lacked inductive analysis that might

explore the characteristics of actual studies.

Some studies have investigated action research enquiries by teachers or

student teachers. Roulston et al. (2005), investigating a research group of two early-

career music teachers and two academics, found the group’s work was mutually

beneficial, especially in developing the skills or ‘asking critical questions … and

seeking evidence based answers’ (p. 14). The authors suggested that, to maximise

professional development potential, such groups should develop over a substantial

period, and adopt a structured framework with specific goals. Both Strand (2006) and

Cain et al. (2007) found that being involved in action research encouraged student

teachers to read educational literature and engage with theory. The students’ writing

went beyond expressing their feelings about teaching and focussed more on their

6
personal development as teachers. The present article builds on these studies by

analysing 24 action research reports by teachers and academics in music education

and asking, ‘What are the distinguishing characteristics of action research in music

education?’

Methods

Wanting to ground this review in a large number of studies, I searched for published

action research reports in music education using ERIC, BEI, CERUK, Google

Scholar and Sage. I also searched the abstracts of music education journals for

references to action research and Educational Action Research for references to music

education. I examined the reports thus revealed, focusing on those which were short

(journal articles, papers in conference proceedings and book chapters, not theses),

because they were published since 1990, in the public domain, in English, and

because they are explicitly identified by their authors as action research.

Reading, re-reading and summarising each report, I identified the elements of

planning, acting, evaluating and reflecting. I included data collection with acting, and

data analysis with evaluating. Most action research reports are not structured in this

way because each element typically changes during the research, sometimes occurring

more or less simultaneously, with distinctions between them being blurred. The

reports typically simplify the research processes and my analysis simplified it further

– to understand any particular report, it should be read in full. Where possible I

incorporated the author’s words in the analysis. Concerned that it might be too

formulaic to deal with the complexities of the research under review, wherever I could

find the authors’ email address, I sent them the analysis for member-checking. Some

suggested minor changes, most of which I incorporated, but none reported that their

work had been seriously misrepresented.

7
 In order to understand the strengths of each report as action research, I

identified which of Somekh’s (2006) methodological principles was apparent in each

report (see column 1). These principles provide a trustworthy account of action

research because they encapsulate similar points by other authors, and because

Somekh (an acknowledged expert in action research) cites considerable personal

experience in support of them. They also provide the possibility of a more

comprehensive analysis than other typologies of action research, including Carr and

Kemmis’ (1986) distinction between technical, practical and emancipatory levels, and

Noffke’s (1997) categories of professional, personal and political dimensions.

Analysis

[insert table 1]

The analysis in Table 1 reveals a wide range of action research projects, involving

single teachers and many teachers, with and without support from academics, in sites

which include schools, universities, conservatoires, extra-curricular and community

spaces. The focus of the action included curriculum, resources, assessment, behaviour

management and teaching approaches, with participants including teachers, parents

and students: the very young, school-children, adolescents and adults. Although the

most common data collection methods were qualitative, including reflective journals,

interviews and participant observations, some studies also employed quantitative

methods. Where data analysis was described, it was sometimes inductive, deriving

themes from the data (e.g. Davidson, 2004) and sometimes deductive, relating data to

pre-existing theories (e.g. Miller, 2004). With regard to Somekh’s methodological

principles, all projects employed some of the principles but none employed all, and

some occurred markedly more often than others (see Table 2). The following section

explores the extent to which Somekh’s principles were observed in these reports.

8
[Insert Table 2]

Characteristics of many reports: a) integrating research and action, b) collaboration,

c) drawing on existing knowledge, and d) engendering powerful learning

a) Somekh conceptualised research as ‘the collection of data’ and ‘analysis and

interpretation of those data’ and described this process as being integrated holistically

with ‘the planning and introduction of action strategies to bring about positive

change’. Achieving holistic integration is not easy; Hammersley (2004), arguing that

such integration is logically impossible, suggested that either research must be

subordinated to action or vice-versa. In some reports the research element appeared

subordinate; for example several reports did not explain how their data were collected

or analysed. Viewed purely as research, many reports might be considered weak,

tending towards anecdotalism or selective treatment of data, and it could be argued

that the improvements claimed might exist mainly in the minds of the researchers. In

contrast, the research element in Welch et al. (2005) included a very detailed analysis

of lessons, but the action was restricted to providing technology and training for the

teachers in the study.

b) Although action research is considered a grassroots movement, Somekh

recognised that insider researchers (such as teachers) often work with outsiders (such

as university staff), and she discussed different combinations of researchers and

participants (including pupils). She insisted that there should be ‘equality of esteem’

between researchers, allowing the perspectives of ‘insiders’, who possess detailed

understandings of their immediate contexts, to complement those of ‘outsiders’ who

possess understandings of broader contexts surrounding education and research.

These reports show a variety of collaborations: nine were instigated by teachers, either

9
in school or private practice, ten by university staff, whilst others were undertaken by

teachers, supported by university researchers. Most involved partnership with learner-

participants but not all described how the consent of participants was obtained;

indeed, ethical issues were not mentioned in most reports. (A notable exception is

Gaunt, 2007). Furthermore, some of the research was undertaken by a sole researcher

without the support of critical friends, which might have strengthened the

trustworthiness of the findings.

c) Somekh described existing knowledge, ‘drawn from psychology,

philosophy, sociology and other fields’ becoming ‘an integral part of analysis and

interpretation’. As we have seen, Strand (2006) and Cain et al. (2007) found that

action research encouraged student teachers to read, understand and cite academic

literature; a similar effect can be noted with teachers. Almost all reports cited many

other research texts, demonstrating knowledge of the field under study. However, not

all cited action research methodology texts, few referred to other action research

projects, and there is little evidence that music education action researchers know

each other’s work. It is also notable that the project with perhaps the greatest potential

impact on practice in England (Price and D’Amore, 2007) cited very few texts.

d) Powerful learning, according to Somekh, occurs through a combination of

research and reflection, and might be ‘less intense’ for outsider researchers. Most

reports claimed powerful learning for the researchers and some went further, citing

evidence of powerful learning for the participant pupils (e.g. Black, 1998; Auh, 2005)

and even the surrounding community (e.g. Cope, 1999; Wasiak, 2005).

Characteristics of few reports: a) cyclical design, b) social justice, c) reflexivity, and

d) location within broader contexts

10
 a) Although Somekh refers to action research as a ‘cyclical process’, Conway

(2001) pointed out that much reflection, of which action research is a part, is

‘temporally truncated’; that is, there is only one turn of the action research cycle.

Most of these projects were not cyclical and some were carried out as before-and-after

studies; indeed James (1998) actually had an experimental design. However several

projects appeared to gain in depth as a result of sustained reflection over time.

Helpfully, Cope (1999) documented a deterioration in the second year of the project,

leading to improvements in the third year, reminding us that not all action leads to

improvement.

b) For Somekh, social transformation is related to a moral and political

standpoint of aiming for greater social justice for all. Few of these reports allied

themselves explicitly with such a position, although Auh (2005) was concerned with

impact in a school serving a socially and economically deprived area and Black

(1998) was concerned to achieve the cohesion, that is a consequence of greater social

justice, in her own class. The report which most fully embodies Somekh’s notions of

action research promoting social justice is Wasiak (2005) which had a clear aim of

diminishing power differentials between groups of people.

c) Somekh acknowledged that one approach to action research, seen especially

in the work of Whitehead (e.g. 1989) and McNiff (e.g. 1988) views ‘an exploration of

the self … as the central purpose of carrying out research’. She rejected this view as

oriented towards professional development rather than research, but nevertheless

stated that, ‘the development of self-understanding is important in action research’.

Given that music can be seen partly as a means of self-expression, it is perhaps

surprising that none of these reports contain anything that could be described as ‘an

exploration of the self’. Examples of reflexivity are confined to the authors’ reflecting

11
on the significance of their learning to their professional development (e.g. Conway &

Jeffers, 2004), rather than achieving greater self-knowledge.

d) Finally, Somekh saw the broader historical, political and ideological

contexts as inevitably shaping activity at local levels. Several of these reports drew

links between their own research and its wider contexts. For example, Miller’s (1996)

study was situated in a context in which music is seen as merely a ‘handmaiden’ to

other subjects; she took a stance against ideologies that position music as peripheral.

However, it would be wrong to argue that these reports are strongly influenced by

historical, political and ideological contexts, or that action researchers in music

education are generally concerned with changing such contexts; such change as

occurs is usually conceptualised as having a local effect, rather than being allied to

wider political movements.

Conclusion

This review has demonstrated that music education action research reports focus on a

wide variety of subject matter, although there is not yet a substantial body of reports

from any particular field within music education. They integrate research and action,

are collaborative, grounded in a body of existing knowledge, and lead to powerful

learning for the participants, although few are cyclical, deal with aspects of social

transformation, or broad historical, political or ideological contexts. There is little

focus on reflexivity. Thus most reports describe fairly pragmatic (rather than ideals-

driven) attempts to improve practice locally – in the terms used by Carr & Kemmis

(1986) they are more often practical than emancipatory. And, although no single

report meets all of Somekh’s principles, this might be because at least two of these

principles might be mutually incompatible – no report focuses both on the self and on

12
societal contexts and this could be because both foci cannot be equally well served by

the same project.

Discussion

There are issues of quality. Unlike some other types of research, action research is

seen as having a value in itself, independently of any published report, because the

process of carrying out the project can positively affect practice. (The only instance I

found in which action research did not affect practice, was outlined in Byrne &

Sheridan (2001) whose SCARLATTI project generated teaching materials but failed,

in its action research component, to get teachers to share their practice in an online

teachers’ network.) But action research also generates practitioners’ knowledge, and

Leglar & Collay (2002) saw the accumulation of such knowledge, as, ‘central to the

evolution of teaching … to a true profession’ (p. 868). So action research can affect

practice; reports of action research can disseminate practitioners’ knowledge. Whereas

social science research is largely concerned with generating propositional (‘factual’)

knowledge, practitioners’ knowledge is more varied than this. Swanwick (1994)

describes four overlapping, but logically distinguishable types of knowledge:

propositional knowledge (e.g. knowing how many symphonies Beethoven wrote);

procedural knowledge (e.g. how to play a violin); acquaintance knowledge (e.g.

knowing Elgar’s overture, In the South) and attitudinal knowledge (e.g. valuing rock

music as profoundly significant and hating commercialised music). Action research

projects can generate propositional knowledge but claims to such knowledge are often

weak (Foreman Peck & Murray, 2007); the studies reviewed here appear, on the

whole, to have generated at least as much procedural, acquaintance and attitudinal

knowledge. For example, Black (1998) reports how pupils’ self-esteem might be

raised, she makes us acquainted with her class, and explains how attitudes of respect

13
for unruly students might lead to understanding, rather than simply opposing, their

behaviours.

If a body of well-grounded practitioners’ knowledge is to be developed

through action research, it seems that researchers might benefit from three things: a

good understanding of action research, a focused use of research literature and a

defensible position with regard to data analysis and the generation of trustworthy

findings. First, Somekh’s methodological principles can help improve understandings

of action research for, although no report met all her principles, those which met many

are more akin to action research, as it is commonly understood, than those which did

not. The projects which met few principles usually did so, either because their focus

became other people (such as pupils) or because they evaluated an intervention

without showing change over time. Second, in order to generate knowledge in a

particular area, action researchers might do well to consider other action research

projects in similar areas. However, the small list of references in Price and D’Amore

(2007) is evidence that there might be less need to cite substantial numbers of social

science research texts; if action research generates procedural, acquaintance and

attitudinal knowledge, it might be better for action researchers to employ texts which

carry these types of knowledge. Third, action researchers need a defensible position

with regard to data analysis and the generation of trustworthy findings. Taking place

in naturalistic settings, action research generates huge quantities of data; it is

impossible to collect and analyse everything, but it is important that data are selected,

not only to provide evidence of improvement, but also to chart the limits of the

improvement. For example, although Auh (2005) listed the repertoire that ‘most

students’ could play, her account would have been more trustworthy if it had included

an analysis of how many students played what music, and how well. And, although

action researchers cannot make their findings more trustworthy by reducing variables,

14
they can present clear analyses of data, involving credible others as critical

commentators on their research. In addition, the cyclical nature of action research can

strengthen the research by explaining the stages that researchers make on their

journey of discovery. Action researchers document change, and their reports include

propositional knowledge about change. They can also document changes in

procedural, acquaintance and attitudinal knowledge; these can generate findings too,

and are important aspects of practitioner knowledge.

Finally, although it is difficult to capture procedural, acquaintance and

attidudinal knowledge in written form, it is much easier to do this in video. In a

locally-produced report, Parker & Furness (2006) presented their action research

outcomes as, ‘a series of video essays, some of which are profiles of individual

participants, some of which are mini-documentaries about different aspects of the

work, and some of which are resources and teaching materials’ (p. 11). The two DVDs

that accompany the written report are linked to a password-protected website which

allows readers to acquire knowledge which is easier to show than to write about. As

well as being a significant (albeit unpublished) piece of research in its own right, it

shows the potential for the future development of action research reports in music

education.

There is a large and ever-growing stock of social science research about music

education, although several writers agree that teachers rarely use research findings in

support of their own teaching (e.g. Hemsley-Brown and Sharp, 2003). There is a

much smaller corpus of action research. However, if action researchers develop their

understanding of action research, take a more focused use of research literature and a

defensible position with regard to data analysis and the generation of trustworthy

findings, they might make a very significant contribution to music education.

15
References

AUH, M. (2005) ‘Make a difference in a public high school? A personal experience in

music classes’. Proceedings of the 15th National Conference, Australian

Society for Music Education, Melbourne, July 3-7, 2005.

BANNAN, N. (2004) ‘A role for action research projects in developing new

pedagogical approaches to aural and musicianship education’, in J. W.

Davidson (Ed) The music practitioner: research for the music performer,

teacher and listener. Aldershot: Ashgate.

BARRETT, M. (1994) ‘Music Education and the Primary/Early Childhood Teacher: a

solution’. British Journal of Music Education, 11(3): 197 - 207.

BLACK, C. (1998) ‘Improving group dynamics and student motivation in a Grade 9

music class’. The Ontario Action Researcher, 1(1),

www.nipissingu.ca/oar/archive-Vol1.htm accessed 23/01/07.

BRESLER, L. (1996) ‘Basic and applied qualitative research in music education’.

Research Studies in Music Education, 6: 5-17.

BRESLER, L. (1995/2006) ‘Ethnography, phenomenology and action research in

music education’. Visions of Research in Music Education, 8.

www.rider.edu/~vrme [accessed 10/01/07].

BYRNE, C. & SHERIDAN, M. (2001) ‘The SCARLATTI papers: development of an

action research project in music’. British Journal of Music Education, 18(2):

173-185.

CAIN, T., HOLMES, M., LARRETT, A. & MATTOCK, J. (2007) ‘Literature-

informed, one-turn action research: three examples and a commentary’.

British Educational Research Journal, 33(1): 91-106.

CARR, W. & KEMMIS, S. (1986) Becoming Critical: Education, knowledge and

action research. Lewes: Falmer.

16
CONWAY, C. M. & BORST, J. (2001) ‘Action research in music education’.

Update: Applications of Research in Music Education, 19(2): 3-8.

CONWAY, C. M. & JEFFERS, T. (2004) ‘Parent, student and teacher perceptions of

assessment procedures in beginning instrumental music’. Bulletin of the

Council for Research in Music Education, 160: 16-25.

COPE, P. (1999) ‘Community-based traditional fiddling as a basis for increasing

participation in instrument playing’. Music Education Research, 1(1): 61-73.

DAVIDSON, J. W. (2004) ‘Making a reflexive turn: practical music-making becomes

conventional research’, in J. W. Davidson (Ed) The music practitioner:

research for the music performer, teacher and listener. Aldershot: Ashgate.

ELLIOTT, J. (1991) Action research for educational change. Milton Keynes: Open

University Press.

FOREMAN-PECK, L. & MURRAY, J. (2007) Epistemological bases of educational

research: ESRC teaching and learning programme. Paper presented at the

Annual Conference of the British Educational Research Association, London,

5-8 Sep 2007.

GAUNT, H, (2007) ‘Learning and teaching breathing and oboe playing: action

research in a conservatoire’. British Journal of Music Education, 24(2): 207-

231.

GIFFORD, E. (1997) ‘Improving music learning and teaching through action learning

and action research’. Proceedings of the 15th National Conference, Australian

Society for Music Education, Brisbane, July 4-8, 1997.

HAMMERSLEY, M. (2004) ‘Action research: a contradiction in terms?’ Oxford

Review of Education, 30(2): 165-181.

HARRIS, R. (2000) ‘An action research project to improve the quality of A Level

history writing’. Prospero 6: 65-69.

17
HEMSLEY-BROWN, J. & SHARP, C. (2003) ‘The Use of Research to Improve

Professional Practice: a systematic review of the literature’. Oxford Review of

Education, 29(4): 449-471.

HOOKEY, M. (1994) ‘Music education as a collaborative project: insights from

teacher research’. Bulletin of the Council for Research in Music Education,

123: 39-46.

JAMES, L. (1988) ‘Action research: conducting activities for third graders’. Teaching

Music, 5(5): 42-43, 88.

LEGLAR, M. & COLLAY, M. (2002) ‘Research by teachers on teacher education’, in

R. Colwell & C. Richardson (Ed.) The new handbook of research on music

teaching and learning, pp. 855-873. New York: Oxford University Press.

LEWIN, K. (1946) ‘Action research and minority problems’. Journal of Social Issues,

2(4), 34-46

LOUGHRAN, J. (2005) ‘Researching teaching about teaching: self-study of teacher

education practices’. Studying Teacher Education, 1(1): 5-16.

LYTLE, S. L. & COCHRAN-SMITH, M. (1992) ‘Teacher Research as a Way of

Knowing’. Harvard Educational Review, 62(4): 447-474.

MACKWORTH-YOUNG, L. (1990) ‘Pupil-centred learning in piano lessons: an

evaluated action-research programme focusing on the psychology of the

individual’. Psychology of Music, 18: 73-86.

MAJOR, A. E. (2007) ‘Talking about composing in secondary school music lessons’.

British Journal of Music Education, 24(2): 165-178.

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

McNIFF, J. & Whitehead, J. (2005) Action research for teachers: a practical guide.

London: David Fulton.

MIDDLEWOOD, D., COLEMAN, M. & LUMBY, J. (1999) Practitioner research in

18
 education: making a difference. London: Paul Chapman.

MILLER, B. A. (1996) ‘Integrating elementary general music: a collaborative action

research study’. Bulletin of the Council for Research in Music Education, 130:

100-115.

MILLER, B. A. (2004) ‘Designing compositional tasks for elementary music

classrooms’. Research Studies in Music Education, 22: 59-71.

NOFFKE, S. E. (1997) ‘Professional, personal and political dimensions of action

research’, in M. W. Apple (Ed) Review of research in education. Washington

DC, American Educational Research Association.

ODENA, O. & CABRERA, L. (2006) ‘Dramatising the score: an action research

investigation of the use of Mozart’s Magic Flute as performance guide for his

clarinet concert’. Proceedings of the 9th international conference on music

perception and cognition, University of Bologna, August 22-26.

ORMELL, C (2000) ‘Can Action research rebut charges of intrinsic subjectivity and

subversity?’ Prospero 6: 111-121.

PARKER, E. & FURNESS, E. (2006) Groove on: music for the future. Middlesex:

IMPRO integrated music projects.

PRICE, D. & D’AMORE, A. (2007) Musical Futures: from vision to practice.

www.musicalfutures.org.uk/publications_inner_KeyFindings.html accessed

24/07/07.

REGELSKI, T. A. (1995) ‘Action research and critical theory: empowering music

teachers to professionalize praxis’. Bulletin of the Council for Research in

Music Education, 123: 63-89.

RIDEOUT, R. & FELDMAN, A. (2002) ‘Research in music student teaching’, in R.

Colwell & C. Richardson (Ed.) The new handbook of research on music

teaching and learning, pp. 874-886. New York: Oxford University Press.

19
ROULSTON, K., LEGETTE, R., DELOACH, M., BUCKHALTER-PITTMAN, C.,

CORY, L. & GRENIER, R. S. (2005) ‘Developing a teacher-research group in

music education: mentoring and community through research’. Research

Studies in Music Education, 25: 14-35.

ROULSTON, K. (2006) ‘Mapping the possibilities of qualitative research in music

education: a primer’. Music Education Research, 8(2): 153-173.

SAVAGE, J. (2005) ‘Working towards a theory for music technologies in the

classroom: how pupils engage with and organize sounds with new

technologies’. British Journal of Music Education, 22(2): 167-180.

SOMEKH, B. (2006) Action Research: A Methodology for Change and Development.

Maidenhead: Open University Press.

STRAND, K. (2006) ‘Learning to Inquire: Teacher Research in Undergraduate

Teacher Training’. Journal of Music Teacher Education, 15: 29 – 42.

SWANWICK, K. (1994) Musical knowledge: intuition, analysis and music

education. London: Routledge.

WASIAK, E. B. (2005) ‘litaohkanao’pi – The Meeting Place Project: an alternative

approach to young people’s concerts’. International Journal of Music

Education, 23(1): 73-88.

WELCH, G. F., HOWARD, D. M., HIMONIDES, E. & BRERETON, J. (2005)

‘Real-time feedback in the singing studio: an innovatory action-research

project using new voice technology’. Music Education Research, 7(2): 225-

249.

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): 137-153.

YOUNG, S. (2005) ‘Changing tune: reconceptualising music with under three year

20
 olds’. International Journal of Early Years Education, 13(3): 289-303.

ZUBER-SKERRITT, O. (Ed.) (1996) New directions in action research. London:

Falmer Press.

21