![1 Why should teachers do action research?
Collaborative action research is a powerful form of staff
development because it is practice to theory rather than theory to
practice. Teachers are encouraged to reach their own solutions and
conclusions and this is far more attractive and has more impact
than being presented with ideals which cannot be attained.
(Linda Ross, New South Wales)
1.1 Action research: a case study
Linda Ross is an experienced ESL teacher who has worked for several
years in the Australian Adult Migrant English Program (AMEP). In
1995, because of changes in government funding arrangements, she
found herself teaching a class of adult students with very diverse needs,
who were quite unlike the kinds of immigrant groups she had previously
encountered. Her class consisted of both ®rst and second language
English speakers and it focused on the development of literacy and
numeracy skills. Linda describes her class (this and the following
quotations are from Ross 1997: 133±7):
a boisterous, enthusiastic group of ten students in a class funded by
the Department of Employment, Education and Training. [The
class met] for 20 hours a week, four hours a day for 15 weeks and
was for people who are long-term unemployed to assist their entry
or re-entry into the workplace. The students' ages ranged from 17
to 42 and many had a somewhat chequered educational history.
Linda became part of a collaborative research group of teachers from
different teaching centres within the same organisation who found
action research a transformative means of responding to the changing
pro®les of their classes and developing new teaching strategies and
approaches to meet their students' heterogeneous needs:
At the time I had very little knowledge of how action research
works but the focus intrigued me. Surely we have all struggled with
groups that are disparate to varying degrees. Could there be any
answers? . . .
7](https://image.slidesharecdn.com/actionreserach-140811223913-phpapp02/85/Action-research-in-second-language-teaching-12-320.jpg)
![On the whole I felt adequate in the area of literacy. However, I felt
inadequate in the area of numeracy. It was a new ®eld for me and I
was aware that the students' abilities varied widely . . . In the
numeracy sessions I handed out worksheets or selected areas from
the textbook and then gave assistance as required. These sessions
felt hectic, chaotic and generally unsatisfactory.
At the beginning of the project, Linda felt uncertain as to how to ®nd
a speci®c focus for her research, so she began by simply observing her
lessons:
noting what [I] saw and so start focusing on the issues . . . I began
jotting rough notes immediately after lessons. On 22/3/95 I noted:
`In a half hour session the stronger students only got a few minutes
attention . . . and how can I be sure that the weaker ones are in fact
gaining the skills and concepts that they lack?'
On 27/3/95 I wrote: `A typical numeracy lesson ± hectic! We
revised fractions. The stronger ones know immediately that 1
4 is half
of 1
2. The weaker ones look completely mysti®ed. I need to go much
further back for the weak students. How will I ®nd time?'
A few days later I added: `A support teacher would help ± and
more graded materials ± and more expertise!'
Through these notes and other observations it began to become
clearer to Linda why she felt so dissatis®ed with these sessions:
. Despite expending considerable energy, my efforts were
piecemeal.
. I needed a far clearer picture of the strengths, weaknesses and
progress of each student.
. I needed to develop the basic skills of the weak students but at
the same time extend the strong students.
. My classroom activities were both a time management and a
course design issue.
Having analysed some of the problematic factors in her classroom,
Linda developed a number of practical action strategies to address
them. She proceeded through a series of research phases, each of which
enabled her to discover more about her students and how to meet their
needs. First, she set about gaining a clearer picture of the students'
strengths, weaknesses and skills and developing ways of tracking their
progress:
I developed a checklist of skills so that I could monitor the progress
of each student . . . I include a small section below:
1 Why should teachers do action research?
8](https://image.slidesharecdn.com/actionreserach-140811223913-phpapp02/85/Action-research-in-second-language-teaching-13-320.jpg)
![The approach is only action research when it is collaborative,
though it is important to realise that the action research of the
group is achieved through the critically examined action of
individual group members [emphasis in original].
While not denying the relevance, and even the necessity, of individual
classroom research in certain contexts, this book aims to expand
current portrayals of action research in language teaching. Collabora-
tive action research processes strengthen the opportunities for the
results of research on practice to be fed back into educational systems in
a more substantial and critical way. They have the advantage of
encouraging teachers to share common problems and to work coopera-
tively as a research community to examine their existing assumptions,
values and beliefs within the sociopolitical cultures of the institutions in
which they work. Policies and practices within the organisation are
more likely to be opened up to change when such changes are brought
about through group processes and collective pressures. Collaborative
action is potentially more empowering than action research conducted
individually as it offers a strong framework for whole-school change.
In presenting a collaborative perspective as the motivation for this
book, I draw on action research studies which have been undertaken by
teachers working within groups rather than by individuals. These case
studies and examples are used to provide practical guidance to other
practitioners interested in knowing more about collaborative processes
of action research. They also aim to strengthen the position of practising
teachers' own voices in the second language literature on action
research, voices which provide realistic accounts for other teachers of
what it is like to conduct action research, and which can hopefully
provide other teacher groups with suggestions about what is feasible
and valuable within the constraints of other classroom pressures.
There is a further point to be raised brie¯y in relation to the
collaborative aspect in action research which is only rarely touched
upon in the `teacher as researcher' literature. In a recent discussion,
Golombek (1994: 404) criticises traditional research on teachers'
knowledge about teaching as paternalistic, suggesting that `the knowl-
edge that is close to science of a theoretician is more highly valued than
that of a practitioner'. She cites feminist research which indicates that
women's ways of constructing knowledge are more context-dependent
and personally orientated (Belenky et al. 1986), and suggests that this is
likely to have particularly negative implications for women within the
more dominant research approaches. Similarly, Freeman (1991, cited in
Golombek 1994) has pointed out that women's ways of knowing have
been discredited in the positivist paradigm. In a teaching profession
which is largely populated by women, the inherently supportive and
contextualised nature of collaborative action research may well provide
1.2 A collaborative perspective on action research
13](https://image.slidesharecdn.com/actionreserach-140811223913-phpapp02/85/Action-research-in-second-language-teaching-18-320.jpg)
![. implementing action where improvements are thought to be
possible
. monitoring and evaluating the effects of the action with a view
to continuing the improvement
. monitoring complex situations critically and practically
. implementing a ¯exible approach to school or classroom
improvement through action and re¯ection
. researching the real, complex and often confusing circumstances
and constraints of the modern school
. recognising and translating evolving ideas into action.
Over twenty years ago, Stenhouse (1975: 143), a major proponent of
action research in the context of mainstream education, summarised
some of the central arguments for teachers carrying out research. These
are now gaining greater currency in the ®eld of second language
teaching:
The uniqueness of each classroom setting implies that any proposal
± even at school level ± needs to be tested and veri®ed and adapted
by each teacher in his [sic] own classroom. The ideal is that the
curricular speci®cations should feed a teacher's personal research
and development programmes through which he is increasing his
own understanding of his own work and hence bettering his
teaching . . . It is not enough that teachers' work should be studied;
they need to study it themselves.
According to these accounts, then, action research offers a valuable
opportunity for teachers to be involved in research which is felt to be
relevant, as it is grounded in the social context of the classroom and the
teaching institution, and focuses directly on issues and concerns which
are signi®cant in daily teaching practice.
1.4 Summary
In this chapter I have suggested that action research has a number of
personal and professional bene®ts for second language teachers. These
arguments are drawn from the perceptions of teachers who have under-
taken action research as well as from the professional literature. In
particular, the chapter has aimed to present a case for a move away
from the current predominantly individualistic versions of action
research to more collaborative and critical interpretations.
I have presented action research in a positive light, with the aims of
presenting a rationale for teachers to engage in action research and
building a case for critical re¯ection on practice as integral to teachers'
personal and professional development. However, like Linda Ross,
many teachers with whom I have worked have initially been uncertain
1.4 Summary
17](https://image.slidesharecdn.com/actionreserach-140811223913-phpapp02/85/Action-research-in-second-language-teaching-22-320.jpg)
Action research in second language teaching
- 1. Collaborative Action Research for English Language Teachers
- 2. CAMBRIDGE LANGUAGE TEACHING LIBRARY A series covering central issues in language teaching and learning, by authors who have expert knowledge in their ®eld In this series: Affect in Language Learning edited by Jane Arnold Approaches in Methods in Language Teaching by Jack C. Richards and Theodore S. Rodgers Appropriate Methodology and Social Context by Adrian Holliday Beyond Training by Jack C. Richards Collaborative Action Research For English Language Teachers by Anne Burns Collaborative Language Learning and Teaching edited by David Nunan Communicative Language Teaching by William Littlewood Communicative Methodology in Language Teaching by Christopher Brum®t Course Design by Fraida Dubin and Elite Olshtain Culture Bound edited by Joyce Merrill Valdes Designing Tasks for the Communicative Classroom by David Nunan Developing Reading Skills by FrancËoise Grellet Developments in ESP by Tony Dudley-Evans and Maggie Jo St John Discourse Analysis for Language Teachers by Michael McCarthy Discourse and Language Education by Evelyn Hatch English for Academic Purposes by R. R. Jordan English for Speci®c Purposes by Tom Hutchinson and Alan Waters Focus on the Language Classroom by Dick Allwright and Kathleen M. Bailey Foreign and Second Language Learning by William Littlewood Language Learning in Intercultural Perspective edited by Michael Byram and Michael Fleming The Language Teaching Matrix by Jack C. Richards Language Test Construction and Evaluation by J. Charles Alderson, Caroline Clapham and Dianne Wall Learner-centredness as Language Education by Ian Tudor Managing Curricular Innovation by Numa Markee Materials Development in Language Teaching edited by Brian Tomlinson Psychology for Language Teachers by Marion Williams and Robert L. Burden Research Methods in Language Learning by David Nunan Second Language Teacher Education edited by Jack C. Richards and David Nunan Society and the Language Classroom edited by Hywell Coleman Teacher Learning in Language Teaching edited by Donald Freeman and Jack C. Richards Teaching the Spoken Language by Gillian Brown and George Yule Understanding Research in Second Language Learning by James Dean Brown Vocabulary: Description, Acquisition and Pedagogy edited by Norbert Schmitt and Michael McCarthy Vocabulary, Semantics, and Language Education by Evelyn Hatch and Cheryl Brown Voices From the Language Classroom edited by Kathleen M. Bailey and David Nunan
- 3. Collaborative Action Research for English Language Teachers Anne Burns
- 4. published by the press syndicate of the university of cambridge The Pitt Building, Trumpington Street, Cambridge cb2 1rp, United Kingdom cambridge university press The Edinburgh Building, Cambridge cb2 2ru, United Kingdom 40 West 20th Street, New York, ny 10011±4211, USA 10 Stamford Road, Oakleigh, Melbourne 3166, Australia # Cambridge University Press 1999 This book is in copyright. Subject to statuary exception and to the provisions of relevant collective licensing agreements, no reproduction of any part may take place without the written permission of Cambridge University Press. First published 1999 Printed in the United Kingdom at the University Press, Cambridge Typeset in Sabon 10.5pt/12pt A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library Library of Congress cataloguing in publication data applied for. isbn 0 521 63084 3 Hardback isbn 0 521 63895 x Paperback
- 5. For Ross, Douglas and Catherine
- 7. Contents Acknowledgements x Preface 1 1 Why should teachers do action research? 7 1.1 Action research: a case study 7 1.2 A collaborative perspective on action research 12 1.3 Teachers' responses to action research 14 1.4 Summary 17 Group discussion tasks 18 2 De®nitions and processes 20 2.1 Introduction 20 2.2 Quantitative approaches to research 21 2.3 Qualitative approaches to research 22 2.4 Action research 24 2.5 What are the origins of action research? 26 2.6 What does action research involve? 29 2.7 What are the processes of doing action research? 35 2.8 Summary 43 Group discussion tasks 44 3 Getting started 45 3.1 Introduction 45 3.2 Constraints and impediments 45 3.3 Finding a focus 53 3.4 The role of theory in question formulation 68 3.5 Ethical considerations 70 3.6 Summary 75 Group discussion tasks 76 vii
- 8. 4 Observational techniques for collecting action research data 78 4.1 Introduction 78 4.2 Observation 80 4.3 Notes and diaries 85 4.4 Audio and video recording 94 4.5 Photographs 101 4.6 Charting the social organisation of the classroom 105 4.7 Summary 115 Group discussion tasks 116 5 Non-observational techniques for data collection 117 5.1 Introduction 117 5.2 Interviews 118 5.3 Surveys and questionnaires 129 5.4 Life and career histories 136 5.5 Documents 140 5.6 Metaphor development 147 5.7 Summary 150 Group discussion tasks 151 6 Analysing action research data 152 6.1 Introduction 152 6.2 What is data analysis? 153 6.3 When should data be analysed? 154 6.4 Processes of analysis 156 6.5 Validity and action research 160 6.6 Enhancing trustworthiness in action research 162 6.7 Techniques for analysing data 166 6.8 Summary 179 Group discussion tasks 180 7 Disseminating the research and sustaining the action 181 7.1 Introduction 181 7.2 Disseminating the research 181 7.3 Sustaining the action 201 7.4 Summary 212 Group discussion tasks 212 Contents viii
- 9. 8 Collaborative action research in practice 214 8.1 Introduction 214 8.2 Action research as professional development 215 Jane Hamilton 8.3 Using English outside the classroom 221 Janette Kohn 8.4 The Teams/Competencies Project 225 The staff of Wilkins Intensive English Centre 8.5 Strategies for `non-language' outcomes 229 Lenn de Leon 8.6 Concluding remarks 233 Further reading 236 References 243 Index 255 Contents ix
- 10. Acknowledgements Numerous people have supported and encouraged me in the writing of this book. My appreciation and thanks are ®rst due to the many teachers who have collaborated with me as practitioner researchers. Their names are too numerous to list individually, but their contribu- tions as well as their enthusiasm for teacher research are hopefully well re¯ected throughout the book. Chris Candlin, Geoff Brindley and Catherine du Peloux MenageÂ, my colleagues at the National Centre for English Language Teaching and Research at Macquarie University, must also be thanked for their ongoing support and encouragement of my work. I am grateful also to the staff of the Resource Centre at NCELTR for their endless patience in chasing up books, articles and references whenever I needed them. Jenny Hammond and Helen Joyce deserve special mention for their reading and editing of the manuscript at various stages and for their suggestions and discussions. My collaboration with my co-researcher and co-editor, Susan Hood, has been a constant source of stimulation as well as personal pleasure over a number of years. Thanks are also due to Alison Sharpe of Cambridge University Press who greatly encouraged me at an early stage to consider that the book could be a reality and to Mickey Bonin who took over from Alison and kept me going at just the right point in the process. Julia Harding, who edited the manuscript, brought a fresh editorial eye to my writing and made many useful suggestions. As always, my patient and uncomplaining family have supported and encouraged me throughout the entire enterprise. It is to them that I affectionately dedicate the book. The publishers and I are grateful to the following copyright owners for permission to reproduce copyright material. Every endeavour has been made to contact copyright owners and apologies are expressed for any omission. Goswami, D. and P. Stillman. 1987. Reclaiming the Classroom: Teacher Research as an Agency for Change. Boynton/Cook Publishers, a sub- sidiary of Reed Elsevier, Inc., Portsmouth, NH on p.16; Kemmis, S. and R. McTaggart. 1988. The Action Research Planner. Geelong, Victoria: Deakin University Press on pp.33, 51,112; Somekh, B. 1993. Quality in x
- 11. Educational Research - The Contribution of Classroom Teachers. In Edge, J. and K. Richards (Eds.). Teachers Develop Teachers Research. Macmillan Heinemann Ltd. on pp.33 and 34; McNiff, J. 1988. Action Research: Principles and Practice. Routledge on p.51; Allwright, D. 1993. Integrating `Research' and `Pedagogy': Appropriate Criteria and Practical Possibilities. In Edge, J. and K. Richards (Eds.). Teachers Develop Teachers Research. Macmillan Heinemann Ltd. on p.52; Kemmis, S. and R. McTaggart. 1982. The Action Research Planner. Geelong, Victoria: Deakin University Press on pp.54 and 55; Hitchcock, G. and D. Hughes. 1995. Research and the Teacher. Routledge on pp.71, 72, 136 and 137; Somekh, B. 1994. Inhabiting Each Other's Castles: Towards Knowledge and Mutual Growth Through Collabora- tion. In Educational Action Research 2. Oxford: Triangle Journals on pp.72 and 73; Kebir, C. 1994. An Action Research Look at the Communication Strategies of Adult Learners. In TESOL Journal 4. Copyright # 1994 by Teachers of English to Speakers of Other Languages, Inc. on pp.73 and 177, used with permission; McKernan, J. 1996. Curriculum Action Research. London: Kogan Page Ltd. on pp.89 and 94; Brophy, M. 1995. Helena's Perspective. In C. Riddell (Ed.). Journeys of Re¯ection. ESL Action Research in TAFE. Of®ce of Training and Further Education and Western Metropolitan College of TAFE, Melbourne, Victoria : Australia, on pp.133 and 134; Koster, P. 1996. In the Mood. In Investigating the Teaching of Grammar. Reports from a Collaborative Action Research Project Conducted by NSW AMES. NSW AMES Occasional Papers Volume 1 Sydney: Program Support and Development Services on pp.141, 142 and 143; Allan, L. 1994. Re¯ection and Teaching: Co-operative Workshops to Explore Your Experience. Sydney: Adult Literacy Information Of®ce, on pp.147 and 148; Elliot, J. 1991. Action Research for Educational Change. Open University Press on p.186; Winter, R. 1989. Learning from Experience: Principles and Practice in Action Research. The Falmer Press on p.186; Erickson, F. and J. Wilson. 1982. Sights and Sounds of Life in Schools. Research Series 125. College of Education, University of Michigan, on pp.198 and 199; Mazillo, T. 1994. On Becoming a Researcher. In TESOL Journal 4. Copyright # 1994 by Teachers of English to Speakers of Other Languages, Inc. on p. 201, used with permission; Calhoun, E.F. 1994. How to Use Action Research in the Self-renewing School. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development, on pp.209, 210, 211 and 212; Burns, A. and S. Hood (Eds.). 1995, 1996, 1997. The Teacher's Voice Series and Prospect: A Journal of Australian TESOL. National Centre for English Language Teaching and Research, Macquarie University: Sydney. xi Acknowledgements
- 12. 1 Why should teachers do action research? Collaborative action research is a powerful form of staff development because it is practice to theory rather than theory to practice. Teachers are encouraged to reach their own solutions and conclusions and this is far more attractive and has more impact than being presented with ideals which cannot be attained. (Linda Ross, New South Wales) 1.1 Action research: a case study Linda Ross is an experienced ESL teacher who has worked for several years in the Australian Adult Migrant English Program (AMEP). In 1995, because of changes in government funding arrangements, she found herself teaching a class of adult students with very diverse needs, who were quite unlike the kinds of immigrant groups she had previously encountered. Her class consisted of both ®rst and second language English speakers and it focused on the development of literacy and numeracy skills. Linda describes her class (this and the following quotations are from Ross 1997: 133±7): a boisterous, enthusiastic group of ten students in a class funded by the Department of Employment, Education and Training. [The class met] for 20 hours a week, four hours a day for 15 weeks and was for people who are long-term unemployed to assist their entry or re-entry into the workplace. The students' ages ranged from 17 to 42 and many had a somewhat chequered educational history. Linda became part of a collaborative research group of teachers from different teaching centres within the same organisation who found action research a transformative means of responding to the changing pro®les of their classes and developing new teaching strategies and approaches to meet their students' heterogeneous needs: At the time I had very little knowledge of how action research works but the focus intrigued me. Surely we have all struggled with groups that are disparate to varying degrees. Could there be any answers? . . . 7
- 13. On the whole I felt adequate in the area of literacy. However, I felt inadequate in the area of numeracy. It was a new ®eld for me and I was aware that the students' abilities varied widely . . . In the numeracy sessions I handed out worksheets or selected areas from the textbook and then gave assistance as required. These sessions felt hectic, chaotic and generally unsatisfactory. At the beginning of the project, Linda felt uncertain as to how to ®nd a speci®c focus for her research, so she began by simply observing her lessons: noting what [I] saw and so start focusing on the issues . . . I began jotting rough notes immediately after lessons. On 22/3/95 I noted: `In a half hour session the stronger students only got a few minutes attention . . . and how can I be sure that the weaker ones are in fact gaining the skills and concepts that they lack?' On 27/3/95 I wrote: `A typical numeracy lesson ± hectic! We revised fractions. The stronger ones know immediately that 1 4 is half of 1 2. The weaker ones look completely mysti®ed. I need to go much further back for the weak students. How will I ®nd time?' A few days later I added: `A support teacher would help ± and more graded materials ± and more expertise!' Through these notes and other observations it began to become clearer to Linda why she felt so dissatis®ed with these sessions: . Despite expending considerable energy, my efforts were piecemeal. . I needed a far clearer picture of the strengths, weaknesses and progress of each student. . I needed to develop the basic skills of the weak students but at the same time extend the strong students. . My classroom activities were both a time management and a course design issue. Having analysed some of the problematic factors in her classroom, Linda developed a number of practical action strategies to address them. She proceeded through a series of research phases, each of which enabled her to discover more about her students and how to meet their needs. First, she set about gaining a clearer picture of the students' strengths, weaknesses and skills and developing ways of tracking their progress: I developed a checklist of skills so that I could monitor the progress of each student . . . I include a small section below: 1 Why should teachers do action research? 8
- 14. The checklist proved extremely useful and the numeracy session felt far more focused. The checklist became the basis of my lesson planning. Linda was still worried about the amount of time she was able to give to each student. She decided to ®nd out how the students felt: I began to discuss some of my concerns with the students . . . I mentioned to some of the stronger students that I felt I was neglecting them. They were surprised and assured me that they liked the present system. One of them told me in her usual direct manner: We don't want a teacher breathing down our necks. We don't like to be treated like kids. We like it when you give us the sheet and we can just get on with it. Don't worry ± we'll yell if we need you. I felt an incredible sense of relief! Why hadn't I spoken to them earlier. Aiming to improve the classroom management problems she had identi®ed, Linda decided to divide the class into ability groups: I prepared worksheets at two levels and gave them out ± as discreetly as possible ± according to the ability of the student. The students did not actually move into groups. The aim was to allow the weaker students to develop skills at a much slower pace, while extending and challenging the stronger students. . . . I abandoned this approach very shortly after introducing it as it 1.1 Action research: a case study 9 Lillian Warren Chris Kerin Mike George John Barry Peter Kelly Uses place value up to 5 places Uses decimal point approp- riately Can read numbers from calculator Can `round up'
- 15. was more destructive than constructive. Despite my efforts, the students immediately compared their sheets and there was a subtle change in the group dynamics. Two of the weaker students began to come late, did not bring pens, had not done their homework and so on. I had made the mistake of `labelling' some students as under- achievers and realised that I had undermined their morale. This was interesting since they had always found it quite acceptable to label themselves . . . It seemed it was quite different if the teacher did the labelling. Linda re¯ected on the outcomes of these strategies and decided on a new course of action: I realised that in my enthusiasm for greater ef®ciency, I had undermined the self-esteem of the students who required the greatest support. I decided on a new strategy . . . I took graded materials into the classroom and explained that the ®rst worksheet was to be done by everyone and was compulsory. After that it was up to the students how much they completed. I found this method successful. Even though I had feared that the stronger students would complete the compulsory sheet in a few minutes and then simply chat, this was not the case and they were keen to go on with the extra work. The weaker students seemed to gain satisfaction from the fact that they were able to complete the compulsory work successfully. Using the checklist as the basis of my ongoing assessment, I felt that I was now far better able to monitor progress. At the end of the course it was apparent that all the students had made good progress. A further step in the research, and additional insights into her students' needs, came when Linda enlisted the cooperation of one of the two researcher coordinators with whom her action research group worked. This last step should have come much earlier in the process as it gave me so much insight into the students' perceptions and needs. One of the research coordinators, Sue Hood, visited the class and asked the students questions concerning their preferred learning styles and past learning experiences. The students responded very positively to the fact that their views were being sought and valued. Sue: Is it a problem in the class . . . that you have different things you want to do? (General agreement from students that this is not a problem.) Chris: The one thing is we're all learning. That's the main factor. 1 Why should teachers do action research? 10
- 16. Sue: Do you prefer to do all the same work . . . so that you're doing the same activity? (General agreement from students that they prefer this.) Stephen: I reckon it makes it easier for everyone to learn that way and that's the best way to learn instead of teaching say three one thing and three another and somebody else different . . . Linda drew a number of conclusions from the research she had conducted: As a result of this project I realised that I needed to reconsider a number of issues which had concerned me . . . When faced with disparate levels in a class, it would seem practical to divide the class into groups according to their ability. However, in a class where the development of self-esteem is crucial to learning, this arrangement may serve to undermine the con®dence of the weakest members. The students in this particular class clearly favoured a system where they participated as equal members of the group, supporting one another as necessary. I had viewed the class as a teacher and educationalist and I had focused on the negative aspects of being in a group of disparate learners. I had been worried that I was not giving the students equal attention and that I would not be able to assist all of them to achieve the course competencies. I discovered that the students did not expect to get equal attention, but that they only wanted help when they had a problem, and while they were keen to progress, they gave equal importance to factors such as belonging to the group. In fact, the students were very positive about the class. They did not see themselves as a `disparate group' but as a cooperative group who supported one another in achieving their goals. Linda had this to say about collaborative action research: I would strongly recommend action research to all teachers. The process is rewarding because it validates classroom observation and encourages you to value your own judgements. The sessions with other teachers help to shape your ideas and challenge you to rethink many issues. In my case it reminded me of the value of asking the opinions of the students. Finally, while traditional forms of professional development can be very stimulating it is sometimes dif®cult to relate the theory with which teachers are presented to the reality of the classroom. Action research is refreshing as it is concerned with the classroom as it really is. Linda Ross's report (see Ross 1997 for a full account) provides an example of how a teacher who was part of a collaborative action research group developed a critical perspective on her practice and observed systematically various in¯uential factors operating in her 1.1 Action research: a case study 11
- 17. classroom by using action research as a powerful medium of re¯ection. This is not to suggest that teachers such as Linda are de®cient in what they already do; it is rather to propose that re¯ective analysis of one's own teaching develops a greater understanding of the dynamics of classroom practice and leads to curriculum change that enhances learning outcomes for students. Doing action research collaboratively is the focus of this book. It is based on my experiences over a number of years of working with several groups of second language teachers in the AMEP, as well as with teachers in schools and organisations elsewhere in Australia. These teachers have been interested in working collaboratively to put into practice the principles of action research in order to investigate and re¯ect critically on their own teaching situations. Overwhelmingly, the teachers with whom I have worked as an action research collaborator have indicated that they greatly value doing action research. Based on my experiences, I therefore take the position that researching one's own classrooms and teaching contexts is something which can, and should, be considered by language teachers, as a realistic extension of pro- fessional practice. The book aims to provide both a theoretical and a practical guide for teachers who wish to extend their role in this way in order to include a research focus. In presenting such a guide, I acknowledge that teachers may not always have the opportunity to work in a collaborative relationship with teacher educators/researchers and with other teachers. However, I also make the assumption that second and foreign language teachers have an increasing number of reasons for wanting to conduct action research ± their own professional development, a desire to develop research skills, a wish to present systematic evidence for change to their schools or teaching organisa- tions, or completion of a university course with an action research component. 1.2 A collaborative perspective on action research Action research, as it is now more typically portrayed in the second language literature (e.g. Nunan 1989, 1992), has tended to take on an individualistic focus, of teachers investigating teaching and learning in the isolation of their own classrooms (Richards and Freeman 1992). However, that view of action research is counter to its original goals, which were to bring about change in social situations as the result of group problem-solving and collaboration. This perspective implies that the main purpose of individual classroom investigation is to reinforce the broader goals of the group, as Kemmis and McTaggart (1988: 5) suggest: 1 Why should teachers do action research? 12
- 18. The approach is only action research when it is collaborative, though it is important to realise that the action research of the group is achieved through the critically examined action of individual group members [emphasis in original]. While not denying the relevance, and even the necessity, of individual classroom research in certain contexts, this book aims to expand current portrayals of action research in language teaching. Collabora- tive action research processes strengthen the opportunities for the results of research on practice to be fed back into educational systems in a more substantial and critical way. They have the advantage of encouraging teachers to share common problems and to work coopera- tively as a research community to examine their existing assumptions, values and beliefs within the sociopolitical cultures of the institutions in which they work. Policies and practices within the organisation are more likely to be opened up to change when such changes are brought about through group processes and collective pressures. Collaborative action is potentially more empowering than action research conducted individually as it offers a strong framework for whole-school change. In presenting a collaborative perspective as the motivation for this book, I draw on action research studies which have been undertaken by teachers working within groups rather than by individuals. These case studies and examples are used to provide practical guidance to other practitioners interested in knowing more about collaborative processes of action research. They also aim to strengthen the position of practising teachers' own voices in the second language literature on action research, voices which provide realistic accounts for other teachers of what it is like to conduct action research, and which can hopefully provide other teacher groups with suggestions about what is feasible and valuable within the constraints of other classroom pressures. There is a further point to be raised brie¯y in relation to the collaborative aspect in action research which is only rarely touched upon in the `teacher as researcher' literature. In a recent discussion, Golombek (1994: 404) criticises traditional research on teachers' knowledge about teaching as paternalistic, suggesting that `the knowl- edge that is close to science of a theoretician is more highly valued than that of a practitioner'. She cites feminist research which indicates that women's ways of constructing knowledge are more context-dependent and personally orientated (Belenky et al. 1986), and suggests that this is likely to have particularly negative implications for women within the more dominant research approaches. Similarly, Freeman (1991, cited in Golombek 1994) has pointed out that women's ways of knowing have been discredited in the positivist paradigm. In a teaching profession which is largely populated by women, the inherently supportive and contextualised nature of collaborative action research may well provide 1.2 A collaborative perspective on action research 13
- 19. an important avenue for language teachers' (and particularly female language teachers') voices to be strengthened. In addition, the increase in individual and collective knowledge about teaching, as it occurs through teachers' own experiences, has the potential to bring research and practice closer together in productive ways. 1.3 Teachers' responses to action research In language teaching, as well as in the broader educational community, a strong distinction has often been made between academic research and classroom practice. Academic research conventions have created a separation between theory, research and practice (Hopkins 1993), with the result that many teachers regard research, at best with suspicion and at worst with contempt, as the province of academic researchers who know little ± and understand less ± about the day-to-day business of life in the language classroom (Beasley and Riordan 1981; McDonough and McDonough 1990). Even when teachers are interested in research and research ®ndings, they may believe that they do not have the skills, training or knowledge to carry out research according to empirical requirements. In recent years, it has become increasingly commonplace in the ®eld of English as a second or foreign language to hear or read about the `re¯ective practitioner' and the `teacher as researcher'. But why should English language teachers become researchers? After all, teachers already lead busy classroom lives. Why should they wish to add research to all their other classroom responsibilities? Teachers with whom I have worked have pointed to what they see as the bene®ts of involvement in action research. A group of twenty ESL teachers, who participated in a recent Australian collaborative project exploring the impact of the introduction of a new competency-based curriculum on teachers' course design, suggested a number of reasons why they viewed action research in a positive light (A. Burns 1997: 107±8). First, teachers highlighted the capacity of action research to enable them to engage more closely with their classroom practice as well as to explore the realities they faced in the process of curriculum change: It made me evaluate what I was doing in my classes. I think I have become more methodical in the way I approach assessment and in my explanation to the class, not in what I do (which is much the same) but how. It gave me an opportunity to undertake action research and to learn about this method as it related to my teaching. 1 Why should teachers do action research? 14
- 20. It gives teachers an opportunity to re¯ect on the decisions behind what they do. As well it helps provide a foundation for further developing the curriculum. Second, collaboration with other teachers was seen as a signi®cant bene®t personally and as a key factor in generating solutions to changes in institutional demands: It gave me an opportunity to meet with others outside the centre, to listen to their ideas and their methods of solving problems which seem to be common to all. Collaboration: discussion was most worthwhile ± broadening perspectives, feedback, reinforcement and support. Other comments related to the sense of personal and professional growth teachers had experienced: It felt good to be part of a project again. I liked having the time and direction to re¯ect on what I was doing and why. It was fun! When you're feeling pretty jaded by college and state bureaucracy, it's nice to stretch the brain a bit. Writing up ± time for re¯ection, depth of perspective. I felt a degree of personal satisfaction once I collected the data and completed the write up ± a feeling that I had challenged myself and was able to meet the challenge to a certain extent. Increased self-awareness and personal insight were also valued: Self-analysis ± examining strengths and weaknesses ± reaf®rming commitment to principles of teaching. I was surprised by the responses from a questionnaire I gave the students and it was interesting for me to write this up. Some teachers also suggested that they could now understand the reasons and need for institutional curriculum change more clearly: It clari®ed important issues from outside the classroom. It gave me a great feeling of being part of a progression, rather than just ful®lling the teaching requirements of a particular Stage. More sensitive now to the demands made by industry on students and teachers. Able to accommodate those that are useful ± discriminate those that aren't. These comments suggest that collaborative action research has the capacity to initiate and enhance teachers' research skills as a natural extension of teaching practice. They also suggest that action research is what Linda Ross, the teacher whose comments are presented at the beginning of this chapter, described as `a powerful form of staff 1.3 Teachers' responses to action research 15
- 21. development'. The teachers' responses indicate that, from their point of view, classroom enquiry and self-re¯ection are important components of professional growth, providing a sound source for pedagogical planning and action and enabling them to frame the local decisions of the classroom within broader educational, institutional and theoretical considerations. They saw collaborative critical enquiry as a source of teacher empowerment, as it develops the ability to evaluate curriculum policy decisions and to exercise professional judgement and it af®rms the role of the teacher. The views expressed by these teacher researchers are echoed by Goswami and Stillman's (1987: preface) persuasive account of what happens when teachers experience research as part of their teaching role: 1 Their teaching is transformed in important ways: they become theorists, articulating their intentions, testing their assumptions, and ®nding connections with practice. 2 Their perceptions of themselves as writers and teachers are transformed. They step up their use of resources; they form networks; and they become more active professionally. 3 They become rich resources who can provide the profession with information it simply doesn't have. They can observe closely, over long periods of time, with special insights and knowledge. Teachers know their classrooms and students in ways that outsiders can't. 4 They become critical, responsive readers and users of current research, less apt to accept uncritically others' theories, less vulnerable to fads, and more authoritative in their assessment of curricula, methods and materials. 5 They can study writing and learning and report their ®ndings without spending large sums of money (although they must have support and recognition). Their studies while probably not de®nitive, taken together should help us develop and assess writing curricula in ways that are outside the scope of specialists and external evaluators. 6 They collaborate with their students to answer questions important to both, drawing on community resources in new and unexpected ways. The nature of classroom discourse changes when inquiry begins. Working with teachers to answer real questions provides students with intrinsic motivation for talking, reading, and writing and has the potential for helping them achieve mature language skills. In a similar vein, Kemmis and McTaggart (1982: 2±5) list a number of bene®ts which can accrue from involvement in action research processes. They include: . thinking systematically about what happens in the school or classroom 1 Why should teachers do action research? 16
- 22. . implementing action where improvements are thought to be possible . monitoring and evaluating the effects of the action with a view to continuing the improvement . monitoring complex situations critically and practically . implementing a ¯exible approach to school or classroom improvement through action and re¯ection . researching the real, complex and often confusing circumstances and constraints of the modern school . recognising and translating evolving ideas into action. Over twenty years ago, Stenhouse (1975: 143), a major proponent of action research in the context of mainstream education, summarised some of the central arguments for teachers carrying out research. These are now gaining greater currency in the ®eld of second language teaching: The uniqueness of each classroom setting implies that any proposal ± even at school level ± needs to be tested and veri®ed and adapted by each teacher in his [sic] own classroom. The ideal is that the curricular speci®cations should feed a teacher's personal research and development programmes through which he is increasing his own understanding of his own work and hence bettering his teaching . . . It is not enough that teachers' work should be studied; they need to study it themselves. According to these accounts, then, action research offers a valuable opportunity for teachers to be involved in research which is felt to be relevant, as it is grounded in the social context of the classroom and the teaching institution, and focuses directly on issues and concerns which are signi®cant in daily teaching practice. 1.4 Summary In this chapter I have suggested that action research has a number of personal and professional bene®ts for second language teachers. These arguments are drawn from the perceptions of teachers who have under- taken action research as well as from the professional literature. In particular, the chapter has aimed to present a case for a move away from the current predominantly individualistic versions of action research to more collaborative and critical interpretations. I have presented action research in a positive light, with the aims of presenting a rationale for teachers to engage in action research and building a case for critical re¯ection on practice as integral to teachers' personal and professional development. However, like Linda Ross, many teachers with whom I have worked have initially been uncertain 1.4 Summary 17
- 23. about what action research involves and how to do it. The aim of this book is to draw on their experience and to present practical guidelines for teachers who want to work together to explore their classrooms through an action research approach. In the chapters that follow, the central themes of the book are taken up and extended in greater detail. Chapter 2 discusses the nature and origins of action research and outlines phases in the action research process, while Chapter 3 considers starting points for research, and particularly how a focus for research can be developed. It also reviews the ethical issues to be considered. Chapters 4 and 5 look at procedures and techniques for data collection, using practical illustrations from case studies of collaborative projects. Chapter 6 is concerned with analysing data and drawing out implica- tions for practice. In Chapter 7, ways of reporting on action research and maintaining the impact of action research processes at the classroom and organisational levels are discussed. Chapter 8 aims to illustrate further the realities of conducting action research by presenting excerpts from case study accounts written by teachers and research coordinators who have participated in collaborative projects. Reports by teachers who have conducted collaborative action research are still relatively rare in the second language literature. Readers who are impatient to read accounts of action research in practice may wish to begin with this chapter before working through the more detailed discussion of pro- cesses contained in the previous chapters. In my experience, a helpful ®rst step is often made when teachers gain an overview of different approaches to educational research and the various research processes and methods related to these approaches; this allows for a better understanding of what action research is and what it is not. The next chapter, therefore, considers brie¯y different approaches to conducting research in the ®eld of English as a second language education and discusses how action research ®ts into these perspectives. It goes on to discuss the origins of action research and to draw out the relevant phases and processes which can be expected to occur in an action research cycle. Group discussion tasks 1 To what extent do you agree with the idea that teachers may ®nd academic research ®ndings unrelated to their daily classroom work? Consider reasons for your responses. 2 To what extent do you draw on research in your own teaching? Do you, for example, consult the professional literature? If so, what kind of articles or books do you read and how do you use them in your teaching? 1 Why should teachers do action research? 18
- 24. 3 What reasons for carrying out collaborative action research can you suggest other than those listed in Section 1.3? 4 What dif®culties or constraints might present themselves for teachers wishing to form a collaborative research group? 5 Based on the brief account outlined in this chapter, develop your own working de®nition of action research. 6 List what you understand at this point to be the main characteristics of action research. 7 What arguments are there for conducting collaborative action re- search rather than individual action research? 8 What would be the advantages of conducting individual action research? Group discussion tasks 19