Educational Action Research Action research and the english as a foreign language practitioner: time to take stock

This article was downloaded by: [117.6.237.10]On: 05 June 2015, At: 20:25Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: MortimerHouse, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Educational Action ResearchPublication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/reac20

Action research and the english as a foreign languagepractitioner: time to take stockIsobel Rainey aa University of Surrey , Guildford, United KingdomPublished online: 20 Dec 2006.

To cite this article: Isobel Rainey (2000) Action research and the english as a foreign language practitioner: time to takestock, Educational Action Research, 8:1, 65-91, DOI: 10.1080/09650790000200112

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09650790000200112

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the “Content”) containedin the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make norepresentations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose ofthe Content. Any opinions and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors,and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content should not be reliedupon and should be independently verified with primary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shallnot be liable for any losses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and otherliabilities whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to orarising out of the use of the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematicreproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in anyform to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/reac20

http://www.tandfonline.com/action/showCitFormats?doi=10.1080/09650790000200112

http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09650790000200112

http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

Educational Action Research, Volume 8, Number 1, 2000

65

Action Research and the English as a Foreign Language Practitioner: time to take stock

ISOBEL RAINEY University of Surrey, Guildford, United Kingdom

ABSTRACT In the late 1980s and early 1990s, the field of Teaching English to

Speakers of Other Languages (TESOL) experienced an energetic and

enthusiastic campaign in favour of the practice of action research among

teachers in the profession. Although there are now some positive signs that

action research is practised by teachers working in English as a Foreign

Language (EFL) contexts, it is, as yet, not so clear that such practice is

widespread. Yet, few educators deny the importance of action research for

‘bridging the gap’ between theory and practice, or the need for that gap to be

bridged in all spheres of the profession. This article reports the result of a

small-scale international survey into the knowledge, practices and opinions of

EFL classroom teachers with respect to action research, and discusses reasons

for and possible solutions to some of the difficulties and limitations of action

research at this level.

Introduction

It is commonly acknowledged that the field of Teaching English to Speakers of Other Languages (henceforth TESOL) suffers from ‘disorientation, fragmentation, disunity, and fickleness’ (Murray, 1998, p. 14), and from ‘periodic, radical paradigm shifts’ (Sheen, 1994, p. 127). It is not surprising, therefore, that when something ‘new’ is proposed, ‘there are good reasons for being sceptical’ (Crookes, 1993, p. 130). In the late 1980s and early 1990s, TESOL experienced an enthusiastic campaign among its teachers and teacher educators in favour of the practice of action research, which although it has a long history, had only just become known in this profession. (Crookes, 1993). There was some justification for welcoming, albeit cautiously, this particular ‘innovation’ in as much as the practice of action research in the English as a Foreign Language [1] (EFL) classroom

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

117.

6.23

7.10

] at

20:

25 0

5 Ju

ne 2

015

Isobel Rainey

66

heralded hope for closing ‘the gulf between research bodies and the teaching profession’ (Beasley & Riordan, 1981, cited in Nunan, 1989, p. 2). Fifteen years on, there is some evidence (Krona, 1988; Naidu et al, 1992; Thorne & Qiang, 1996; Burns, 1999) that classroom teachers are beginning to find their ‘voice ... in the process of research’ (Hyatt & Beigy, 1999, p. 31), but it is still not clear whether the practice of action research is widespread among practising EFL teachers on an international scale, if indeed it is widespread in any EFL context at all. On this level, there may even be some cause for concern. Whereas in the early 1990s there was much evidence of interest in the practice of action research at international TESOL conferences, such evidence is no longer so palpable. In 1999, for example, the author attended three such conferences in Singapore, Turkey and Canada, but out of a total of some 300 sessions, only five were related to research based in classroom action. This then beggars the question is action research now being regarded as yet another ‘unproductive revolution’ (Sheen, p. 128) and no longer worthy of the practising teacher’s attention? The organisation of international conferences with a specific action research focus, for example, the TDTR [2] may gradually compensate to some extent for what could be a lessening of interest in and enthusiasm for action research within the profession. This might also be the case with those international conferences that bring together action researchers from different disciplines, the 8th World Congress on Participatory Action-Research (and 4th on Action Research) in Cartagena, Colombia in 1997 being a case in point. It is also possible that, as these international conferences with a specific focus on action research gather strength, related activities, such as the publication of conference proceedings, will have a backwash effect on the general TESOL community. They may serve to consolidate or revive interest in action research – if indeed it has begun to wane. In the meantime, however, not only does action research appear to have a lower profile than it did some 10–15 years ago on the agendas of international TESOL conferences, but the number of articles reporting the outcomes of action research based in the EFL classroom has been rather meagre. What’s more, Rubdy (1998, p. 277) aptly points out that, in the case of one such publication, namely, Bailey & Nunan’s 1996 collection, most of the reports are written, not by classroom teachers, but by the theoretical advocates of action research themselves. Again, this may change and, in this respect, the publications by Krona, etc., listed above, are especially encouraging. That output from a range of EFL contexts has been slow, however, is still disconcerting, as it may indeed indicate that few practising EFL teachers do action researchers or that those who do it are not writing up and sharing the outcomes of their research. This, in turn, leads to two further and major concerns. In as much as ‘research is not research unless it is communicated’ (Stern, 1983, cited in Crookes 1993, p. 137), limited output could then undermine the contribution of action research to the profession. Thus, the relationship between classroom action research and other forms of research could evolve, and may already have evolved, into one of a hierarchical nature. At a recent Examiners’ Meeting

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

117.

6.23

7.10

] at

20:

25 0

5 Ju

ne 2

015

ACTION RESEARCH AND EFL PRACTITIONERS

67

attended by the author, for example, one of the examiners rejected a piece of research on the grounds that it was ‘just a piece of action research’. This would then confirm Crookes’ prediction that action research, if not properly written up, might be regarded as leading to ‘work of poor quality or work which is undesirable in other ways’ (1993, p. 130). The other major concern is that, if EFL teachers are either not active in the practice of action research, or are active, but not sharing the outcomes of their studies, they will miss out on the exciting opportunity action research offers them to emancipate themselves from ‘the domination of unexamined assumptions embodied in the status quo’ (Ericson, 1986, p. 208).

A principal aim of this study was to test the waters with respect to the knowledge, practices and opinions of action research of a modest international sample of practising EFL teachers. The survey also hoped to probe some of the reasons for the issues discussed above, and to propose possible solutions to the practical problems and professional limitations classroom teachers encounter with this type of research.

After a brief explanation of the definitions of action research relevant to the present discussion, the article goes on to explain how the survey was organised. The results are then reported and analysed, as are those of follow-up interviews with four of the teachers surveyed and of interviews related to a piece of relevant second order action research carried out by the author. The article concludes with some suggestions for ways in which those EFL teachers who wish to do action research and report the results of their endeavours can be supported beyond the conferences, seminars or courses where they first encounter the concept.

Action Research

There are many definitions of action research, and comparative discussions of its relationship to similar forms of research such as reflective practice and exploratory teaching. Such details fall outside the scope of this article and have, at any rate, been very well documented elsewhere (Allwright, 1991; Wallace, 1991; Nunan, 1992; Farrell, 1998; Burns, 1999). In order to appreciate the motivation behind this study, it is necessary, however, to discuss the two views of action research most commonly found in the ELT literature.

The first view is that of action research for the teacher’s professional self-development. It involves the teacher working on a small-scale interventionist level to improve his or her own practice, in line with Halsey (1972, cited in Cohen & Manion 1994, p. 186). This view is echoed by Wallace (1991) in his definition, namely that action research ‘... should be addressed to practical problems and should have practical outcomes ... (and) ... is simply an extension of the normal reflective practice of many teachers, but ... is slightly more rigorous’ (Wallace, 1991, p. 56).

The second is that of collaborative action research resulting in critical reflection and, in turn, to change not just in the immediate environment,

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

117.

6.23

7.10

] at

20:

25 0

5 Ju

ne 2

015

Isobel Rainey

68

the classroom in the case of education, but in the wider community. This view is closer to the original perspective on action research, which was first mooted, not in language teaching, but in the general field of education (Dewey, 1929) and in the social sciences (Lewin, 1946). The latter ‘saw action research as a spiralling process of reflection and enquiry with the potential to become emancipatory and empowering’ (Burns, 1999, p. 27). This view is endorsed by Carr & Kemmis (1986), who ‘are not satisfied with a conception of action research in which teachers simply identify a problem and solve it – they wish to see the development of a cyclical programme of reform whose results are reflected on and further refined and developed in collaborative investigative communities’ (Crookes, 1993, p. 135). It was such investigative communities that Freire (1970), Stenhouse (1975) and Crawford-Lange (1982) had in mind in their quest for ‘reflection and action ... in order to reform’ (White, 1988).

Central to the discussion in this article is the tenet that it is the first form of action research that is most widespread in the TESOL profession. While this form of action research may be suited to the initial needs of EFL classroom teachers, it is the second type, i.e. collaborative action research leading to reform, that is more likely to convince and produce the kind of enduring results classroom teachers aspire to.

Purpose

The research reported below is mostly of a fact-finding, descriptive nature. As such, it had several specific aims. First, to find out how widespread the knowledge of action research is among this international sample of practising EFL teachers, which form of action research the teachers know about, if they know about it at all, and whether or not those who know about it actually practise it. Secondly, to ascertain how those who know about it heard about it, why EFL teachers who know about action research do or do not practise it, and whether those who do it write it up. Finally, to probe the opinions of the grassroots EFL teachers about the concept and potential of action research. As stated earlier, this was merely an informal testing of the waters with respect to the knowledge and practices of action research among a modest international sample. However, the author did have certain expectations that, for the purpose of this report and given the discussion in the Introduction, will be called hypotheses, i.e. in the sense of ‘possible explanation for a given situations’. The hypotheses were that most of the teachers surveyed:

1. would have some knowledge of action research; 2. would have heard only about the first form of action research, i.e. action research for professional self-development, cf. Action Research above; 3. who have heard about it would not actually practise it; 4. would claim lack of time and insufficient research skills as their main reasons for not doing action research; 5. who do it would not write regular reports on their action research;

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

117.

6.23

7.10

] at

20:

25 0

5 Ju

ne 2

015


69

6. would have heard about it from an overseas speaker at a conference; 7. would be quite sceptical about action research and regard it as just another fashion in ELT.

The energetic campaign in favour of action research, referred to in the Introduction, and the survey of the relevant literature in Action Research generated hypotheses (1) and (2). Hypotheses (3), (4) and (5) focus on the possible limitations practising teacher might have with respect to action research, which could result in the limited output, discussed in the Introduction. Hypotheses (6) and (7) reflect the researcher’s own growing uneasiness about the possible decline in interest in action research and the reasons for this decline, also referred to in the Introduction.

Methods

A questionnaire with both open and closed questions was sent out to practising classroom teachers in 10 countries.[3]

Countries Surveyed

Altogether 240 questionnaires were distributed among the following 10 countries: China, Colombia, Greece, Japan, Morocco, Poland, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Thailand and Tunisia. Originally, the aim was to distribute 30 questionnaires in each country. This was achieved in the case of China, Colombia, Greece, Japan, Poland and Thailand. It proved impossible in the case of Morocco, Tunisia, Qatar and Saudi Arabia, however, where 15 questionnaires were distributed in each case. For the purpose of this study, therefore, and given the geographical closeness and cultural similarities, the results of the Morocco and Tunisia distributions (30 questionnaires distributed in total) were combined under the Magreb, and those of Qatar and Saudi Arabia (30 questionnaires distributed in total) under the Gulf.

The scope of the survey was limited by contacts available to the author. The aim of targeting most of the major regions of the world was achieved, however, in as much as the Far East (China and Japan), South East Asia (Thailand), the Middle East (Qatar and Saudi Arabia), North Africa (Morocco and Tunisia), Europe (Greece and Poland, and thus both Western Europe and the former Eastern Bloc), and Latin America (Colombia) are represented.

Distributors and Respondents

Contact with the distributors was established on an institutional level. Thus, it was possible to ensure that the distributors themselves were familiar with the concept of action research and had access to practising EFL teachers. In some countries, Colombian and Japan, for example, it was possible to work with two distributors, each in different cities/towns. In other countries, however, China and Greece, for example, contact was

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

117.

6.23

7.10

] at

20:

25 0

5 Ju

ne 2

015

Isobel Rainey

70

limited to one distributor. Clear written instructions were sent to the distributors and in the case of some distributors these were further clarified during telephone conversations. Distributors were specifically requested to distribute the questionnaires among a cross section of practising EFL teachers who had access to sources of professional development – national, regional conferences, in-service training programmes, EFL journals, newsletters and so on. There was little point in distributing the questionnaires to teachers working in remote areas with no professional development opportunities, as they are unlikely to have had opportunities to learn about action research. Since this study is concerned solely with the ordinary classroom practitioner, distributors were asked not to include teachers who also hold, or currently hold only administrative positions, for example, teacher trainers, directors of study and coordinators. Similarly, they were requested not to include in the survey teachers working in institutions which might be considered ‘privileged’, for example, wealthy language institutes, bilingual secondary schools, money-generating university programmes. If a large number of such teachers completed the survey, the results would not be considered representative of a cross-section of regular EFL classroom teachers. Although no attempt was made to exclude certain types of institutions, distributors were asked to target, as far as possible, secondary school teachers, teachers from less privileged language institutes, and teachers who teach the language component on degree courses at universities, but not teachers within the money-generating institutes. EFL primary school teachers were not excluded; nor were they to be deliberately sought out, however. EFL at primary school level is still an evolving branch of this profession and teachers may as yet not have been exposed to the kind of professional development which would provide them with information about action research. Private as well as state institutions could be surveyed, provided the teachers did not have special privileges with respect to professional development,

In countries where there was only one, distributors were also asked to ensure, as far as possible, that within the teachers they surveyed there were representatives from a variety of institutions or from different parts of their country or both.

Organisation of the Questionnaire

It was anticipated that not all the respondents would have heard of action research and that those who have heard of it might not actually practise it. For this reason, the questionnaire was organised into three sections: A, B and C. Section A collects data about the respondents’ professional activities and backgrounds: number, sector and type of institution in which they work; hours per week; degrees and teaching qualifications; years of experience and frequency with which they attend professional development events. All the teachers surveyed were requested to answer Section A, the last question of which was ‘Have you heard of action research?’ Those who had not did not complete Sections B and C. Those who had continued on to

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

117.

6.23

7.10

] at

20:

25 0

5 Ju

ne 2

015


71

Section B, which looks at what respondents understand by the term action research, how they heard about it, whether they practise it or not, and why they do or do not practise it.

Section C is directed only at those respondents who do action research and elicits information about how they do it, how often they do it, whether or not they write it up, and elicits ‘any other comments they want to make’ or ‘any other opinions they hold’ about action research. A draft questionnaire was sent to seven of the distributors for their comments. As a result, two items were omitted from Section A: gender and average number of students in the respondents’ classes. One distributor commented that controlling for gender could be a sensitive issue in her country. Another was most emphatic that, even though institutions remained unidentified and respondents anonymous, administrators in certain schools would be most uneasy if respondents were asked to reveal the average number of students in their classes.

Outcome of the Survey

Rate of Return

Out of the 240 distributed, 229 were returned. Only one had to be jettisoned: it had clearly been interfered with. There are several possible reasons for this high rate of return. First, the number of questionnaires distributed in each country was not all that great so it was not such a burden for the distributors to cooperate. Secondly, as the distributors themselves were involved in teacher development activities, they may have taken a keen interest in the topic. Given their willingness to write copious answers to some of the open questions, Tables II and III, the teachers surveyed also appeared to be very motivated by the topic.

Profile of the Respondents [4]

As far as the profile of the sample is concerned, it would appear to represent a fair cross-section of practising EFL teachers: 32.2% (just under a third) has a heavy teaching commitment – between 21 and 40+ hours a week (14.5% teaches 21–25, 10.4% teaches 26–30, 4.1% teaches 31–40 and 3.2% teaches more than 40 hours per week.), cf. ‘Hourswk’ table in Appendix 1. Over a third (38%) teaches between 16–20 hours, which could be regarded as a reasonable teaching load and just under a third (29.9%) has a fairly light teaching commitment of under 16 hours a week so. A total of 27.6% teaches in more than one institution, cf. ‘Places’ table also in Appendix 1. In as much as it was drawn from a variety of institution types, the sample was also appropriate: 33.3% of the respondents teach within university degree programmes [5], 36.8% at secondary school and 19.7% in language institutes with the remaining respondents belonging in the primary school, college or private lessons sectors (cf. ‘Uni’, ‘HighS’ and ‘LangInst’ tables in Appendix 1). The total of 100.5% derives from the fact that some of the

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

117.

6.23

7.10

] at

20:

25 0

5 Ju

ne 2

015

Isobel Rainey

72

teachers teach in more than one place and in more than one type of institution. There was a good balance, too, between state and private sector with 56.9% teaching in the former and 53.6% in the latter.

Some of the distributors went to amazing lengths to distribute questionnaires within different institutions or in parts of the country other than the one they work in. Thus, the distributor in Saudi Arabia sent half of his questionnaires to Dharhan, although he himself works in Riyadh. The distributor in Santafe de Bogota, the capital of Colombia situated in the centre of the country, distributed five of his questionnaires to university teachers, five to secondary teachers and five to teachers in language institutes. The other distributor in Colombia, resident in Barranquilla (a city on the northern coast), distributed hers among participants on an in-service teacher training programme, which had brought together teachers from all over the northern region of Colombia and from different institutions. As a result, and even though most of the distributors were from the capital cities, 37.3% of the respondents were from outside the capital cities.

Results in Terms of the Hypotheses

Hypothesis (1). That most of the teachers surveyed would have some knowledge of action research was not confirmed. A staggering 171 (75.5%), cf. Table I, have never heard of action research. These data may be somewhat skewed by the participation of the Chinese teachers. (Only two out of the 30 Chinese teachers surveyed had heard of action research.) China is still in the early days of ‘opening up’ and an innovation that influenced TESOL in other parts of the world as recently as the late 1980s may not, as yet, have found its way into the Chinese TESOL profession. In addition, all the Chinese teachers who completed the survey came from a provincial city. When the questionnaires were distributed, no suitable contacts were available at that point in Beijing, where teachers are more likely to have immediate access to ‘new’ ideas. Nevertheless, even without the Chinese teachers, the number of teachers in this sample who have not heard of action research would still be substantial: 145 out of a new total of 198. What is more, China was not the only country with little knowledge of action research among the sample of teachers surveyed. Poland returned 28 completed questionnaires, but none of the teachers professed any knowledge of action research even though the wave of enthusiasm for action research in TESOL corresponding to the period when Poland was opening up and Western ‘expertise’ was penetrating the former Eastern Block countries (Bell & Gower 1998). Similarly, Japan returned 27 completed questionnaires with only one of the respondents claiming knowledge of action research. Table I summarises, in terms of countries and regions, the results of responses to the question Have you ever heard of Action Research? (last question in Part A.)

The remaining hypotheses, 2–5, are discussed in terms of the 55 respondents who have heard of action research.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

117.

6.23

7.10

] at

20:

25 0

5 Ju

ne 2

015


73

Country or region

Yes

No

China Colombia Greece Japan Magreb Poland Thailand The Gulf Missing system

2 16 8 1 6 9 13 –

28 14 22 26 20 28 16 17 2

Totals 55 171

Table I. Number of respondents per country who have (Yes) and

have not (No) heard of action research.

Hypothesis (2). That the teachers would have heard only about the first form of action research, i.e. action research for professional self-development is partially confirmed. That this is the form of action research which most of the teachers have heard of is illustrated in Table II, which contains responses representative of the answers to the question Explain what you understand by the term action research (Part B of the questionnaire).

Explain what you understand by the term Action Research

1. It’s a type of research a teacher can in the classroom on a specific problem Observation helps (Colombia) 2. Research carried out in the classroom in which a problem is stated, a proposal is made and implemented and the results analysed (Colombia) 3. Study a specific teaching problem (The Gulf) 4. It is concerned with identifying a specific problem in your class and try to investigate the reasons of this problem (The Magreb) 5. It is what one tries to find any problems in our work, then analyse why the problems happen and then tries to find out how to solve the problems (Thailand) 6. Action research is the way to solve the problem and improve our teaching in order to benefit our students (Thailand) 7. You plan, teach and analyse the classroom procedures to use for subsequent lessons (Greece) 8. It’s a kind of investigation of one’s work (China)

Table II. Data which indicate that the respondents are familiar with the type of action

research that is aimed mainly at professional self-development.

A total of 53 teachers gave their definitions or explanations of action research. Of these, 19 referred to ‘solving a problem in my/our classrooms’. Ten talked about ‘improving/analysing my/our teaching/teaching practices or our classroom methodology’. A few observations (Table III) would appear, however, to indicate some understanding of the potential for action research to have outcomes beyond the classroom.

What’s more, the results of the responses to the question Indicate how you do action research (Part C of the questionnaire) reveal evidence of

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

117.

6.23

7.10

] at

20:

25 0

5 Ju

ne 2

015

Isobel Rainey

74

collaborative activity, cf. Appendix 2. While 17 out of the 41 who claim to do action research work alone, as many as 12 sometimes do action research with a colleague from their institution, ‘ColmyIns’ table in the Appendix. Four do it with a colleague from another institution (‘ColotIns’ table in Appendix) and one (‘Othermode’ table in Appendix) uses a mixed mode. (‘Sometimes alone and sometimes with a colleague from my school’.)

Explain what you understand by the term Action Research 1. The steps and procedures taken in order to achieve educational purposes (Colombia) (Purposes here is probably used in the sense of ‘aims’) 2. Taking time out from teaching to review teaching practices and improve the curriculum ... (Colombia) 3. A form of self-reflective inquiry which is undertaken by participants to improve rationality and justice (The Gulf)

Table III. Data that indicate that some respondents are aware that action research

can have consequences beyond the classroom.

Thus, in terms of a definition, these 55 teachers are more familiar with the professional self-development type of action research and appear to have only a vague notion of its potential role in reform. There is, however, a not insignificant awareness of its collaborative scope, which almost half of the active researchers claim to practice.

Hypotheses 3, 4 and 5. That most of the teachers who had heard about it would not actually do it. The teachers would claim lack of time and insufficient research skills as their main reasons for not doing action research. Most teachers who do it, would not write regular reports on their research. Hypotheses 3 would appear not to be confirmed in terms of this sample (Table IV).

Frequency

%

Valid%

Cumulative %

Valid

Regularly

10

18.2

18.5

18.5 Quite often 13 23.6 24.1 42.6 Seldom 18 32.7 33.3 75.9 Never 13 23.6 24.1 100 Total 54 98.2 100 Missing System 1 1.8 Total 55 100

Table IV. Frequency with which those respondents who know about action

research do it. Forty-one out of the 55 (75.9%) who have heard of action research practise it. (Ten do it regularly [6], 13 do it quite often and 18 seldom do it.) If, however, the number of those who seldom do action research 18 (33.3%) is combined with those who never do it, 13 (24.1%), there is a total of 31

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

117.

6.23

7.10

] at

20:

25 0

5 Ju

ne 2

015


75

(57.4%) not very active researchers, in contrast to 23 (42.6%) who do it regularly.

Hypothesis 4 is partially confirmed, as revealed in the answers to question: Explain why you do OR do not do action research (Part B of the questionnaire). The most common reasons for not doing action research is time: items 2, 5–7 and 10 (Table V), but other interesting reasons also unfold. For example, the respondents in 3, 4 and 8 would appear to want or need more training in how to do action research, while the respondent for item 10 seems to need a supportive, collaborative approach. The respondents in items 9 (facilities) and 11 (availability of a cooperative colleague) emphasise the practical problems involved in doing action research, and respondents 5 and 10 (both from the Magreb) comment on their ‘lack of motivation’ for doing it. Items 12 and 13, in addition to the confusion expressed in 13, echo a common reason for not doing action research expressed by many teachers when they are first introduced to the concept.

Explain why you do not do Action Research [7]

1. It isn’t easy and requires a lot of attention If you really want to follow the complete process (Colombia) 2. Due to the amount of work, I have at the moment I don’t have much time to do systematic and continuous research (Colombia) 3. It is the first time to know about it this year (The Gulf) 4. I don’t know the basic steps of obtaining such an activity (The Gulf) 5. Time constraints and lack of motivation (Magreb) 6. Overloaded programme. Not enough time to do things when you have to teach 20 hours a week ( Magreb) 7. No time available (Thailand) 8. I don’t know about the research. It is quite complicated (Thailand) 9. I was very enthusiastic about it at the beginning ... then I stopped because I couldn’t get any help, no motivation from our Ministry (motivation here is probably used in the sense of ‘incentive); too many working hours and no facilities (Magreb) 10. Because I don’t have time or persons that talk to me about this (Colombia) 11. I rarely do it because it calls for a cooperative colleague and working loads do not allow for such work (Colombia) 12. I do not do it because I have always thought I could understand, analyse and evaluate my teaching situation without the need for formal research (The Gulf). 13. I always improve the methods of teaching ... but I never realise if it is a real action research (Thailand)

Table V. Data which indicate the main reasons why these EFL teachers do not do

action research.

Hypothesis 5, on the other hand, is rejected in terms of this sample (Table VI). Of the 41 who do action research, nine always (27.3%) write up their reports and 16 (48.5%) write them up sometimes, with only five (15.2%) and three (9.1%) reporting, respectively, that they seldom or never write up their research. On this score, however, there is little room for optimism, given (a) there were eight missing values for this question and that the sample of active action researchers under discussion (41) is very small. What’s more,

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

117.

6.23

7.10

] at

20:

25 0

5 Ju

ne 2

015

Isobel Rainey

76

future surveys should perhaps delve more deeply into this question of report writing by asking ‘What do you do with the reports you write? Do you keep them just for your own records? Do you share them with other teachers? Do you publish them in regional or national journals or newsletters?’ ‘What difficulties have you encountered?’ One thing is certain, cf. the Introduction, as yet, not many of these reports are making their way into the general TESOL literature.

Frequency

%

Valid%

Cumulative %

Valid

Always

9

16.4

27.3

27.3 Sometimes 16 29.1 48.5 75.8 Seldom 5 9.1 15.2 90.9 Never 3 5.5 9.1 100 Total 33 60.0 100 Missing System 22 40.0 Total 55 100.0

Table VI. Frequency with which respondents write up their action research.

Hypotheses 6 and 7. That the teachers would have heard about it from an overseas speaker at a conference. Most teachers would be quite sceptical about action research and regard it as just another fashion in ELT. These hypotheses are not confirmed. The responses to the open and closed questions that elicited the relevant data for these hypotheses are among the most encouraging outcomes of this study. Thirty-one (58.5%), have heard about action research from a university teacher from their own country (see Figure 1), where the results to the question ‘How did you first hear of action research?’ (Section B of the questionnaire) are shown. What’s more, the number of those who have heard from a colleague at their own institution is the same (six), as those who have heard from an overseas speaker at a conference. Ten students answered under other and the sources listed – teacher training courses, ELT for development projects, and language degree programmes indicate that a solid and permanent source of information was available as opposed to the ephemeral discourse of an overseas conference speaker.

That action research, for these respondents, is more than just a passing conference fashion is further borne out by the absence of scepticism in their answers to the open-ended question ‘Please, write any other comments or opinions you have about Action Research or about your experiences with Action Research’ (Part C of the questionnaire). The following comments illustrate this point:

For me, this is the more appropriate way to get real changes. It is the result of an investigation in action, using real people and real problems in the classroom. (Colombia)

It helps you to develop more. (Greece)

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

117.

6.23

7.10

] at

20:

25 0

5 Ju

ne 2

015


77

Action research is a very useful tool in the professional development in the career and speciality of work. (The Gulf)

I personally feel that Action Research is an effective way of analysing the problems that teachers may encounter in class. (The Magreb)

100mm Figure 1. Sources of information about action research.

Other Noteworthy Results [8]

This sample of teachers has ample access to professional development. To the question ‘How often do you attend professional development activities?’ (Section A of the questionnaire) as many as 95 (42.2%) out of the 228 attend some kind of professional development event 2–3 times a year, and 65 (28.9%) once a year (Table VII). On looking only at those respondents who know about action research, access to professional development facilities may have contributed to their knowledge. All 55 who know about action research benefit from professional development with 48 attending conferences regularly (20 once a year and 28 two or three times a year; Figure 2). However, those who do not know about action research also have regular access to professional development (also Figure 2). What’s more,

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

117.

6.23

7.10

] at

20:

25 0

5 Ju

ne 2

015

Isobel Rainey

78

although Colombia, the country with the highest number of respondents to know about action research (16 out of 30, Table I) has a high rate for attendance at professional development events so also does Poland (Table VII). Yet, Poland recorded zero knowledge of action research for the 28 teachers surveyed (Table I).

65mm

Figure 2. Professional development activities of those who do (Yes – chart on left) and

those who do not (No – chart on right) know about action research.

Country/region

2–3 times a year

Once a year

Once every2–3 years

Never

China

12

7

4

6 Columbia 17 9 2 1 Greece 14 9 3 4 Japan 11 7 2 7 Magreb 14 4 3 4 Poland 12 9 5 2 Thailand 12 8 5 2 The Gulf 3 12 15 Missing system = 03

Totals 95 (42.2%) 65 (28.9%) 39 (17.3%) 26 (11.6%)

Table VII. Attendance at professional development events.

Of special interest, however, is the fact that none of those respondents who have heard of action research professed to never attending professional development events, whereas 26 (15%) of those who do not know about action research never benefit from professional development activities.

It seems safe to say, therefore, that teachers are more likely to have heard about action research if they regularly attend seminars, conferences and workshops, but that attendance at these events does not guarantee that they will have heard of it.

Also worth noting are the results for the years of teaching experience. As many as 25 (45.5%) of those who have heard of action research have

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

117.

6.23

7.10

] at

20:

25 0

5 Ju

ne 2

015


79

more than 12 years teaching experience. It is possible that these teachers benefited from the ample information available about action research during the initial wave of enthusiasm, which also occurred also roughly 12 years ago, as discussed in the Introduction. In contrast, 126 (78.9.1%) of those who have not heard of action research have less than 12 years experience. If action research is no longer discussed as extensively at teacher development events as it was 12 years ago, then this may explain why so many of the teachers with fewer years of experience have not heard about it. On the other hand, that the 55 teachers who know about action research have an average of 12 years experience or more may simply indicate that teachers with more experience are more resolute in their quest for professional development opportunities. This, however, is not supported by some of the research in this area. For example, Huberman (1993) found that ‘the general level of investment – pedagogical, institutional and professional – falls progressively over the course of the career’ (Huberman, 1993, p. 193), and that enthusiasm for ‘innovation’ may rise considerably between 8 and 12 years, but declines rapidly thereafter, particularly in men. In the case of this survey, 12 years or more was the only specification in the questionnaire. Thus, it is impossible to check how many of these teachers had just reached the 12-year watershed, and had therefore still got high levels of investment and how many were far beyond it.

Synthesis of the Results of the Survey

Although three-quarters of the teachers surveyed had not heard of action research, the responses to action research among those who have are in general very positive. Clearly, the majority, including those who do not actively practise action research, are convinced of its potential usefulness for and relevance to them as classroom teachers. Some are also aware of their needs with respect to its practice and of the scope, and limitations of the type of action research in which they have been instructed. In this respect, the following two quotes sum up their main concerns. A respondent from the Magreb commented that ‘Training is very important to have good quality research. Exchange of ideas and experiences with others is very useful. Follow up to action research is very important’. A Colombian respondent, on the other hand, was concerned with the need for research to go beyond the classroom: ‘Looking at classrooms is very important ... However, action research may limit the scope of research because it is very specific within a particular context.’ As no questionnaire survey can account, or even attempt to account for all the feelings, attitudes, positions or opinions of human beings, short ‘interviews’ (email and telephone) were organised with a few of the respondents, the complications of interviewing at a distance making more interviews impossible. The next section deals with these interviews. It begins, however, with some insights gained by the author when carrying out a piece of previous, but relevant second order action research. These insights highlight the need for researchers to

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

117.

6.23

7.10

] at

20:

25 0

5 Ju

ne 2

015

Isobel Rainey

80

exercise extreme caution when delving into the practices of classroom teachers, many of whom may work in insecure positions.

Interviews

Related Second Order Research

Reporting an experience she observed [9], when two groups of students took the same postgraduate programme in consecutive years in Colombia, the author (Rainey, 1996) [10] describes how the groups reacted very differently to exactly the same action research course, which was a compulsory part of the postgraduate programme. Group 1 was receptive and positive to the course, Group 2 much less so. Reasons for Group 2’s disinclination are mooted in the said article. Of interest to the present discussion is one of the solutions proposed to the problem, i.e. to Group 2’s somewhat negative reactions to the action research course. With a view to inspiring Group 2, the previous year’s students, i.e. those from Group 1, were invited to come to the action research course to describe research they had done since completing their postgraduate programme the year before. It evolved, however, that even those students who had expressed most enthusiasm for action research, had not done any action research in the intervening year. Second order research, as proposed by Elliott (1993, p. 177), was considered appropriate in this case and took the form of Interviews [11] with the three most enthusiastic students from Group 1. These revealed that, while the students had been convinced of the importance of action research during their postgraduate course, once back in the cut and thrust of difficult teaching circumstances, their commitment had faltered for the reasons summarised below.

Teacher 1, who taught in a remote, rural secondary school, said that action research was the best course within the postgraduate programme. Action research ‘is what my country needs’. During the course he had done several short research projects and had greatly enjoyed sharing the outcomes of his work with his colleagues on the course. Once the course had finished, however, he had felt very isolated, and had not had the motivation to do action research, although he still firmly believed in it as a way of improving our understanding of the classroom.

Teacher 2, who was from a provincial capital city, said that he remembered that in the literature they had read during the action research course, a United Kingdom-based teacher had said something along the following lines. ‘The head gave me permission to attend a teacher training day so that I could discuss my action research projects with teachers from other schools teaching the same subject’. Teacher 2 pointed out that getting such a concession from his ‘head’ would be impossible and that, while he did not have a formal point of contact with other teachers doing similar things, he was not inspired to do action research.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

117.

6.23

7.10

] at

20:

25 0

5 Ju

ne 2

015


81

Teacher 3, who also worked in a provincial capital city, had a very different reason for what for not doing action research in her school. She said that, during the postgraduate course, she had enjoyed doing action research, as she was able to share the outcomes and ideas with the other students and the lecturer who taught the course. There had been a warm, supportive atmosphere for the duration of the course and a frank, edifying discussion of the action research projects. Back at school, however, the atmosphere was very different. She could do action research within the confines of her own classroom but for her that was not enough. She wanted to enlist the support and collaboration of her colleagues. This, however, was out of the question as ‘researching a problem in my classroom could be seen in my school as a confession that I am not a very competent teacher’.

The insights from these interviews will be dealt with, together with those from the interviews for the present survey, in the ‘Synthesis of the Interviews’ below. Teacher 3’s situation, however, is of immediate relevance in that it serves to remind us that difficult teaching conditions come in many guises and, in researching other teachers’ practices, ethical issue arise (Jarvis, 1999, p. 98). Thus, every effort must be made not to disadvantage in any way those collaborating with the research. In an initial trial run of the questionnaire for this survey, for example, the author and one of the distributors agreed by mutual consent that, on this occasion,[12] it would not be convenient for the distributor to participate in the main survey. She had become embarrassed when she noticed that, ‘despite many seminars and courses about action research in my country’ most of the teachers reported that they were not doing it. For similar reasons and in contrast to the survey outcomes, the interviewees below are not identified by country. There are so few of them that such an identification might have revealed their personal identities and resulted in a breach of confidentiality.

Interview for the Current Survey

Communication [13] was established, via the distributors, with four teachers who completed the questionnaire, all of whom were not doing action research. It was impossible to probe their specific questionnaires, as these had been anonymous. The interviews were therefore simply concerned with asking the interviewees to comment in as much detail as they could on their reasons for not doing action research. They are identified as Teachers 4–7 in order not to confuse them with the Teachers 1–3 in ‘Related second order research’.

Teacher 4 felt that, despite a heavy teaching commitment, she would find time to do action research if the Ministry of Education inspectors who visited her school regularly showed a re-active interest in the outcomes. In this respect, she felt that ‘not just the positive but also the negative results should be shared with the inspectors as negative results could provide the inspectors with information about specific areas where I need their support’. She mentioned, for example, that if she attempted to improve her teaching

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

117.

6.23

7.10

] at

20:

25 0

5 Ju

ne 2

015

Isobel Rainey

82

of the listening skill, she would need more support in the form of tapes and tape recorders.

Teacher 5 was tired of action research. She said ‘it made us have a headache – serious and sometimes exhausting’. It had been a compulsory and accredited part of a part-time postgraduate programme. Assessment was on the basis of formal knowledge of action research and on the report of an ongoing project participants did in their regular classes for the duration of the postgraduate programme.

Teacher 6 said that she did not do action research because she did not feel confident enough because ‘there were still a lot of things we need help with – data analysis, for example’. Like Teacher 5 she had learnt about action research from a compulsory accredited course.

Teacher 7 echoed the concerns of Teacher 4, claiming that he did not see the point of doing action research while there was no communication or coordination of this type of research with the education authorities.

Synthesis of the Interviews

Of the seven teachers interviewed in all, five express a need for some kind of collaboration – either with colleagues at their own schools (Teacher 3), colleagues from other schools (Teachers 1 + 2) or with representatives of the education authorities (Teachers 4 and 7). Thus, the straining for collaborative modes observed in the survey data (Hypothesis 2 above) are reflected in these results. What’s more, the interviews reveal the need for collaboration to involve other professionals in the field of education, for example, Ministry of Education inspectors (Teacher 4), as well as fellow teachers. This forging of closer links with other members of the education community – inspectors, teacher trainers, traditional researchers – is in line with Dewey (1929), who insisted that, through collegial relationships of this nature, theory and practice could be reciprocal, and the deep disjunction between creed and deed overcome (Lagemann, 1999, p. 374). The need for school administrators to be informed about action research and the implications for their concomitant cooperation is borne out in Teacher 2’s interview, which endorses Stuart & Kunkye’s (1998) claim that ‘there must be support for the teachers ...’ (Lagemann, 1999, p. 391), in this case permission to miss classes in order to attend meetings with colleagues in the course of their research endeavours. Teacher 6, on the other hand, intimates that that support should extend to the actual techniques required for the completion of an action research project. Teacher’s 5 rather dramatic reaction to action research may have been the result of the kind of fatigue that many students experience at the end of a long course of study – especially a part-time course. The issue of whether action research should be made a compulsory activity or compulsory component of a degree programme, however, needs to be addressed in greater depth in the literature. Wright (1992), for example, warned that if action research is made compulsory ‘... teachers may sense that they are being asked to take

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

117.

6.23

7.10

] at

20:

25 0

5 Ju

ne 2

015


83

on yet more duties in addition to those which already burden them ...’ (Lagemann, 1999, p. 203).

Discussion and Recommendations

Dewey (1992) proposed that the study of teachers’ own practices is ‘a profoundly important form of educational scholarship’ (Lagemann, 1999: 375), in as much as having ever increasing access to that scholarship would prevent them from embracing ‘... science as a fetish with a life of its own’ (Fals Borda, 1991). It then directs them towards ‘a concept of science more ... pertinent to the vicissitudes of the common people’ (Fals Borda, 1991). This study has shown that, among the practising EFL teachers in the sample who know about it, there is a healthy respect for action research. Although it was the professional self-development type of action research with which they were most familiar, there is also an intuitive straining for more collaborative forms of research, and for that collaboration to have the kind of consequences Dewey envisioned, cf. Table III, Hypothesis 2, ‘Synthesis of the Survey’, and ‘Interviews’ with Teachers 4 and 7. While convictions and enthusiasm of even those teachers who do not do action research, cf. ‘Interviews’, is most encouraging, it would seem unwise for action research facilitators to ignore some of the other outcomes of the study. First, the number of teachers, a majority of whom have access to and take advantage of regular professional development, who have not been informed of action research is disconcertingly high. More research needs to be done to check whether this was just a chance result or whether it represents a true picture of practising EFL teachers’ knowledge of action research. More second order action research is also required to find out what happens to the records kept and reports written by those teachers who write up their research, in the case of this survey a reassuring 85.5% (27.3% always and 48.5% sometimes) claim to do so. Without the dissemination of the research of practising teachers, it is virtually impossible for ‘the kind of practical knowledge and expertise that some of the successful teachers have developed through their experiences’ (Marcondes, 1999, p. 206) to inform educational reforms. As a result, teachers will continue to ‘tend not to believe’ (Marcondes, 1999, p. 209) in reforms and innovations precisely because they do not allow for the teachers’ own voices. Another area of second order research is the issue of the compulsory, accredited action research component of in-service and postgraduate programme. To what extent is it desirable for action research to be a single compulsory course, as it was in the case of the Colombian teachers discussed under ‘Related Second Order Research’ and of Teacher 5 in ‘Interviews for this Survey’. On the one hand, informing teachers of action research is highly desirable, but coercing them into doing it would seem out of keeping with the spirit of action research. On the other hand, just informing teachers and not involving them in the practice could have the effect Wallace (1991) predicted of converting action research into an academic discipline in its own right, which was not directly supportive of

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

117.

6.23

7.10

] at

20:

25 0

5 Ju

ne 2

015

Isobel Rainey

84

professional education and development in terms of practice. (Wallace, 1991). In short, action research – that type of research which aims to remove ‘the wedge between researcher and practitioner’ (Nunan, 1996, cited in Bailey & Nunan, 1996, p. 42) – would ironically run the risk of making its own contribution to that wedge.

While such second order research is being carried out, some suggestions of a practical ilk are in order to help those teachers who are active, but not disseminating the outcomes of their research and those teachers who embrace the principles of action research but are not active. First, whether the courses where the teachers are informed of action research are compulsory or not, the potential role of collaborative action research in reform should be given just as much attention as the professional self-development type. Ensuring that bibliographies for such courses include not just references for collaborative practices in general but for collaborative practices carried out in circumstances similar to those of the students on the course is paramount. Kerfoot (1993) and Thorne & Qiang (1996) would make inspirational reading, for example, for many active or potential action researchers who teach EFL in difficult circumstances. Supporting collaborative action can also be achieved with a minimum of inconvenience in terms of teachers’ time. For example, the organisers of national or regional TESOL conferences could, as SPELT [14] has recently done, leave a space during the conference for active researchers to share and consult with one another and with conference speakers, the outcomes of their research. In this way, action researchers do not have to find the time to attend special meetings. What’s more, they are assured of sentient, supportive and regular feedback for all aspects of their work, including how to write up their reports, and this could have a snowball effect on the number of teachers who get involved in action research. Once EFL action researchers have gained confidence in their own abilities to do and report their research activities, organisers of national and regional conferences could then have conferences with an action research theme, where teachers share their reports with larger audiences. If the presence of representatives from regional or national Ministries of Education can be secured at these conferences, then the seeds of the bottom-up process in curriculum and other related reforms have been sown. If such a presence is not possible, papers resulting from such conferences, or special issues of professional journals with Action Research reports [15] can be delivered to the authorities for their consideration. If action research is made a compulsory course on a postgraduate programme, it might be wise to give students a choice in how they are assessed. Thus, assessment could be on the basis either of a combination of a short action research project and a review of the literature or of a longer project for the duration of the course. Teacher 5 in this study would clearly have been happier with the former. Such courses could also be used as sounding boards for action researchers in the region. In this respect, the idea of inviting back the teachers from

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

117.

6.23

7.10

] at

20:

25 0

5 Ju

ne 2

015


85

Group 1 to discuss their research with a new group of students (Group 2) in the ‘Related Second Order Research’ reported above was a good one. Had the most enthusiastic teachers from Group 1 known that they were not going to be ‘isolated’ and were going to have an opportunity to share their research with these colleagues, this author firmly believes that they would in fact have done action research in the intervening year.

The road to improving any field of education through change that has been inspired by classroom practices is no doubt long and arduous. It may be for this reason that, as yet, there is not a lot of evidence that, with respect to EFL, significant progress along that road is being made. Yet, in terms of those teachers in this survey who know about action research, there is clearly a conviction that, given the right conditions for research, they could and would want to be instrumental in that change. It is hoped that the outcomes of this research will provide action research facilitators in the field of TESOL with the impetus to do the second order research suggested and that the recommendations will make a small, but significant contribution to facilitating the participation of more EFL practitioners in action research. Such increased participation would, in turn, ensure that developments and reform in this sphere of TESOL are not dictated from above or from afar, but are the outcomes of ‘collaborative equal relationships of collegiality’ (Hyatt & Beigy, 1999, p. 39) among teachers, administrators, policy makers and traditional researchers.

Acknowledgements

The author wishes to thank the following distributors for their enthusiastic and efficient collaboration, and their unswerving support: Yi Yong, through the mediation of Regina Jonker (China); Jose Cardenas and Gillian Moss (Colombia); Kate Wakeman (Greece); Hitoshi Mukai and Greville Field (Japan); Nadia Alaoui (Morocco); John Whitehead (Poland); Abdul Moniem M. Hussien (Qatar); Jamil Bellakhil (Tunisia); Abdul Aziz Mujahed (Saudi Arabia); Sujitra Pathumlungk, through the mediation of Marc Bowman, and Philip Mathias (Thailand).

The assistance of Dr Glenn Fulcher, Director, and Anne Irving, Associate Lecturer, both of the English Language Institute at the University of Surrey, with the SPSS was invaluable and much appreciated, as were the comments of the reviewers on the first draft of this article.

Correspondence

Isobel Rainey, School of Language and International Studies, University of Surrey, Guildford GU2 5XH, United Kingdom ([email protected]).

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

117.

6.23

7.10

] at

20:

25 0

5 Ju

ne 2

015

Isobel Rainey

86

Notes

[1] EFL is used throughout this article as this was the sphere the study focused on but much of what is said could also apply to certain English as a Second Language (ESL) contexts.

[2] Teachers Develop Teachers’ Research 4th International Conference, 2–4 September, Leuven, Belgium.

[3] Copy of the questionnaire available on request from the author.

[4] The frequency tables from which the data in this section have been taken/calculated can be found in Appendix 1.

[5] It is worth emphasising that the teachers surveyed in these programmes were teaching EFL and not theoretical subjects.

[6] These ‘vague’ terms were used deliberately as researching teachers’ practices in specific detail can disadvantage the teachers if they work in ‘sensitive’ circumstances, cf. ‘Interviews’.

[7] Only reasons for not doing action research are reported here, as these are more relevant to the present discussion than the reasons for doing it.

[8] Unless otherwise stated, these results refer once again to the whole sample (228) and not just to those who have heard of action research.

[9] The author had been invited to observe the whole PG programme; she was not the lecturer for the AR course.

[10] Paper available on request.

[11] Carried out after the article was written and read at TESOL.

[12] This distributor is, however, keen to cooperate with future research that concentrates on those teachers who are doing and writing up their research.

[13] Two email and two telephone interviews; each interviewee was from a different country.

[14] Society of Pakistan Teachers of English.

[15] Japanese Association of Language Teachers (JALT) is in the process of bringing out such an issue.

References

Allwright, D. (1991) Exploratory Practice, Professional Development, and the Role of a Teachers’ Association, paper read to the Cuban Group of English Language Specialists, April, Havana, Cuba.

Bailey, M. & Nunan, D. (Eds)(1996) Voices from the Language Classroom. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Beasley, R. & Riordan, L. (1981) The Classroom Teacher as a Researcher, English in Australia, 55, pp. 36–41.

Bell, J. & Gower, R. (1998) Writing Course Materials for the World: a great compromise, in B. Tomlinson (Ed.) Materials Development in Language Teaching. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

117.

6.23

7.10

] at

20:

25 0

5 Ju

ne 2

015


87

Burns, A. (1999) Collaborative Action Research for English Language Teachers. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Carr, W. & Kemmis, S. (1986) Becoming Critical: knowing through action research. Geelong: Deakin University.

Cohen, L. & Manion, L. (1994) Research Methods in Education, 4th edn. London: Croom Helm.

Crawford-Lange, L. M. (1982) Curricular Alternatives for Second-language Learning, in T. V. Higgs (Ed.) Curriculum Competence and the Foreign Language Teacher. Skokie: National Textbook Company.

Crookes, G. (1993) Action Research for Second Language Teachers: going beyond teacher research, Applied Linguistics, 14, pp. 130–144.

Dewey, J. (1929) The Sources of a Science of Education. New York: Liveright.

Elliott, J. (1993) Reconstructing Teacher Education. London: Falmer Press.

Elliott, J. (1993) Academic Action Research: the training workshop as an experiment with an ideological deconstruction, in J. Elliott (Ed.) Reconstructing Teacher Education. London: Falmer Press.

Ericson, D. P. (1986) On Critical Theory and Educational Practice, in K. A. Sirotnik & J. Oakes (Eds) Critical Perspectives on the Organisation of Schools. Boston: Kliwer-Nijhoff.

Fals Borda, O. (1991) Participatory Action Research in Colombia: some personal feelings, in R. McTaggart (Ed.) Action Research: a short modern history. Geelong: Deakin University Press.

Farrell, T. (1998) Reflective Teaching: the principles and practices, English Teaching Forum, 36(4), pp. 10–17.

Freire, P. (1970) Pedagogy of the Oppressed. New York: Seabury.

Hasley, A. H. (Ed.) (1972) Educational Priority: Volume 1: E.A.P. problems and policies. London: HMSO.

Huberman, M. (1993) The Lives of Teachers. London: Cassell.

Hyatt, D. & Beigy, A. (1999) Making the Most of the Unknown Language Experience: pathways for reflective teacher development, Journal of Education for Teaching: international research and pedagogy, 25, pp. 31–40.

Jarvis, P. (1999) The Practitioner-Researcher. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers.

Kerfoot, C. (1993) Participatory Education in a South African Context: contradictions and challenges, TESOL Quarterly, 27, pp. 431–448.

Krona, S. (1988) Action Research in Teaching Composition, English Language Teaching FORUM, 26(1), pp. 43–45.

Lagemann, E. C. (1999) Whither Schools of Education? Whither Education Research? Journal of Teacher Education, 50, pp. 373–376.

Lewin, K. (1946) Action Research and Minority Problems, Journal of Social Issues, 2, pp. 34–46.

Marcondes, M. I. (1999) Teacher Education in Brazil, Journal of Education for Teaching, 25, pp. 203–213.

Murray, N. (1998) Comment: a conundrum for language teaching, English Language Teaching Journal, 52(2), pp. 14–15.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

117.

6.23

7.10

] at

20:

25 0

5 Ju

ne 2

015

Isobel Rainey

88

Naidu, B., Neeraja, K., Ramani, E., Shivakumar, J. & Viswanatha, V. (1992) Researching Heterogeneity: an account of teacher-initiated research into large classes, English Language Teaching Journal, 46, pp. 252–263.

Nunan, D. (1989) Understanding Language Classrooms: a guide for teacher initiated action. Hemel Hempstead: Prentice Hall.

Nunan, D. (1992) Research Methods in Language Learning. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Rainey, I. (1996) Grassroots Action Research: what can and cannot be done, paper presented at TESOL, Chicago, 27 March.

Richards, J. C. (1994) Reflective Teaching in Second Language Classrooms. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Rubdy, R. (1997) Review of K. Bailey and D. Nunan (Eds) Voices from the Language Classroom: qualitative research in second language, Education CUP, Applied Linguistics, 19, pp. 272–292.

Sheen, R. (1994) A Critical Analysis of the Advocacy of the Task-based Syllabus, TESOL Quarterly, 28(1), pp. 127–151.

Stenhouse, L. (1975) An Introduction to Curriculum Research and Development. London: Heinemann.

Stern, H. H. (1983) Fundamental Concepts of Language Teaching. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Thorne, C. & Qiang, W. (1996) Action Research in Language Education, English Language Teaching Journal, 50, pp. 254–261.

Wallace, M. J. (1991) Training Foreign Language Teachers: a reflective approach. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Wallace, M. J. (1998) Action Research for Language Teachers. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

White, R. (1988) The ELT Curriculum: design, innovation and management. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.

Wright, T. (1992) L2 Classroom Research and L2 Teacher Education: towards a collaborative approach, in J. Flowerdew, M. Brock & S. Hsia (Eds) Perspectives in Second Language Acquisition. Hong Kong: City Polytechnic of Hong Kong.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

117.

6.23

7.10

] at

20:

25 0

5 Ju

ne 2

015


89

APPENDIX 1

Statistics

Hourswk

Places

Uni

HighS

Langinst

Valid

221

225

228

228

228 Missing 7 3 0 0 0

Hourswk

Frequency

%

Valid %

Cumulative %

Valid

12–15

66

28.9

29.9

29.9 16–20 84 36.8 38.0 67.9 21–25 32 14.0 14.5 82.4 26–30 23 10.1 10.4 92.8 31–40 9 3.9 4.1 96.8 40+ 7 3.1 3.2 100.0 Total 221 96.9 100.0 Missing System 7 3.1 Total 228 100.0

Places

Frequency

%

Valid %

Cumulative %

Valid

One

163

71.5

72.4

72.4 Two 42 18.4 18.7 91.1 Three 20 8.8 8.9 100 Total 225 98.7 100.0 Missing System 3 1.3 Total 228 100.0

Uni

Frequency

%

Valid %

Cumulative %

Valid

Yes

76

33.3

33.3

33.3 No 152 66.7 66.7 100.0 Total 228 100.0 100.0

HighS

Frequency

%

Valid %

Cumulative %

Valid

Yes

84

36.8

36.8

36.8 No 144 63.2 63.2 100.0 Total 228 100.0 100.0

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

117.

6.23

7.10

] at

20:

25 0

5 Ju

ne 2

015

Isobel Rainey

90

Langinst

Frequency

%

Valid %

Cumulative %

Valid

Yes

45

19.7

19.7

19.7 No 183 80.3 80.3 100.0 Total 228 100.0 100.0

APPENDIX 2

Statistics

Colmyins

Colotins

Alone

Othmode

Valid

32

32

32

32 Missing 196 196 196 196

Colmyins

Frequency

%

Valid %

Cumulative %

Valid

Yes

12

5.3

37.5

37.5 No 20 8.8 62.5 100.0 Total 32 14.0 100.0 Missing System 196 86.0 Total 228 100.0

Colotins

Frequency

%

Valid %

Cumulative %

Valid

Yes

4

1.8

12.5


Alone

Frequency

%

Valid %

Cumulative %

Valid

Yes

17

7.5

53.1


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

117.

6.23

7.10

] at

20:

25 0

5 Ju

ne 2

015


91

Othmode

Frequency

%

Valid %

Cumulative %

Valid

Yes

1

.4

3.1


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

117.

6.23

7.10

] at

20:

25 0

5 Ju

ne 2

015

Educational Action Research Action research and the english as a foreign language practitioner: time to take stock

Documents