Action
Research: Empowering the Teachers
Dr. Andrew E. Finch |
Abstract Action research (AR) is a term used to describe the process of identifying a puzzle in the classroom, collecting data, and interpreting that data. This process is beneficial to teachers and students, since it is concerned with improving the immediate learning environment. AR is thus a practical tool which every EFL practitioner can use as a means of improving the teaching/learning environment, since it involves qualitative and subjective reflection on the learning process from as perceived by the main participants – teachers and students. This paper suggests that Korean EFL teachers are well-placed to perform AR in their classes, and offers suggestions on how this might be achieved. |
1. Introduction Before describing Action Research (AR) in detail, two interesting stories are offered, since they contain important truths about the way in which AR approaches the EFL situation (apologies are offered to any statisticians reading this article): 1.
An airplane takes off from 2. A student of statistics is accompanying his statistics professor in his car. The student is puzzled, since the professor never stops for red lights, but drives speedily through every intersection. When the student asks the professor about this, he replies: ¡°Intersections have extremely high accident rates. Therefore I try to spend as little time in them as I can.¡± The point about these two stories is not that the statisticians were wrong to make their assumptions, but that they were focusing on isolated factors, without looking at the overall situation. In the first story, we can see that the amount of time spent in the air was inversely proportional to the number of engines (figure 1, below), and that this time was increasing logarithmically as the number of engines decreased. On the basis of these facts, it would seem correct to infer that when the number of engines was further reduced, then the time in the air would approach infinity, so that the plane would never come down. Common sense, on the other hand, tells us that the plane would in fact crash, since there would be no means of propulsion. Thus, if we added the speed of the plane to the graph in figure 1, this would show us that the plane¡¯s velocity was decreasing along with the number of engines, though the graph would still not allow us to consider factors such as flying height, wind speed, air temperature, ground conditions, and panic-produced human errors. |
Figure 1: Story 1. |
In the second story, the ¡°facts¡± (i.e that intersections have high accident rates) are again viewed in an isolated fashion. After all, if the probability of having an accident is higher at intersections, then it would seem to make sense to drive through them as quickly as possible. However, common sense tells us once more that these particular ¡°facts¡± represent a small part of the whole picture, and that the professor¡¯s actions would in fact lead to a greater probability of having an accident. A more effective interpretation of the data would be to exercise extreme care and to proceed with caution at intersections. These stories illustrate that every situation in life contains a complexity of interdependent factors which, when viewed in isolation, can lead to misinterpretation and to false conclusions. Thus, in the field of English as a Foreign Language (EFL) research, current theory and practice is discovering that:
In view of these considerations, the prepositional, ¡°scientific¡± mode of research that has dominated language learning since the days of behaviourism, is no longer appropriate (nor defensible) as a means of describing and investigating social sciences (including education), and educators are turning to different research paradigms, one of which is Action Research. AR is an educational tool. It describes the process of identifying a puzzle in the classroom, collecting data, and interpreting that data. It centers around the main participants in the learning process (the teachers and students) and investigates their perceived realities within that situation. AR can be used by individual EFL teachers as a means of investigating and understanding the local learning environment (their own classrooms), before telling other teachers and educators (reporting the findings) afterwards. This paper investigates AR from the point of view of Korean EFL teachers and offers suggestions on how AR projects might be set up by them. 2. Description and rationale Two basic types of research are currently employed in educational inquiry. These can be classified as Measurement-based (quantitative) and Descriptive (qualitative) (table 1). |
Table 1: Types of research (adapted from Nunan, 1992, p. 4)
Qualitative research: |
Quantitative research: |
|
|
As can be seen from table 1, AR is qualitative and descriptive. It
seeks to understand the behaviour of teachers and students from their
own points of view, and uses naturalistic, uncontrolled observation
to do this. AR is subjective, discovery-oriented, process-oriented,
and ungeneralizable. Rather than disregarding subjective factors, AR
examines them, with a view to describing the learning environment as
it is seen by the participants. This ¡°real¡¯, ¡°rich¡± approach recognizes
that the perceptions of the ¡°players¡± (teachers and students) represents
¡°truth¡± for them, and that these factors ultimately determine what
happens inside and outside of the classroom. For example, if students
show evidence of unrealistic expectations, or if the perceptions of
the teacher and the students are shown to be significantly different,
then subsequent learning will be adversely affected, whether or not
these perceptions have any objective basis. AR therefore investigates
and describes such factors, so that they can be acknowledged and modified.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
The qualitative, subjective nature of AR has caused its internal/external validity/reliability to be questioned (table 2, below). However, such issues are only problems when viewed from the propositional (¡°scientific¡±, isolationist, experimental, quantitative) perspective. Thus, the first question in table 2 asks whether an independent researcher would come to the same conclusion as the original researcher, upon reanalyzing the data (internal reliability). In response to this question, we need only restate that AR investigates problems as perceived by and as addressed by actors in those situations. In this context, individuals interpret data according to their own perceived realities, in order to find solutions which produce the required results. Once a working solution has been found for the researcher¡¯s unique perception of his/her unique situation, then the purpose of the research has been satisfied, regardless of any differing conclusions which other observers might arrive at. In other words, AR offers the appropriate solution for the appropriate practitioner in the appropriate situation. It might appear that this approach is open to subjectively autocratic interpretations of objective facts. However, it is important to realise that the complex, dynamic nature of every classroom cannot be objectified (or this would have been done in the behaviorist era), and that solutions cannot be imposed externally by a disassociated observer. What works for one teacher might not work for another, and what works for one group of students might not work for another group. Table 2: Problems of AR relating to reliability and validity (Nunan 1992, p. 17)
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
The second question in table 2 (above) refers to the possibility of replicating the study. This again, is a propositional question, since AR is concerned only with a unique problems in a unique learning environments. When we consider variables such as schools, principals, teachers, students, age, gender, proficiency level, fluency level, confidence, motivation, attitudes, beliefs, perceptions, anxiety, learning preferences, family backgrounds, peer-pressure, fear of failing, etc., then we can see that every class is different, and that conditions cannot be replicated. An independent researcher, on replicating the study, would of necessity come to different conclusions. The assumption underlying question 3 (table 2) is causal, i.e. that research should identify cause and effect. However, complexity theory (Waldrop 1992) shows that the search for causal relationships is pointless. Thus Van Lier (1996) suggests that: "it is useful to regard the classroom as a complex adaptive system" (1996:38) in which "details are all that matters" (Gould 1993) and that "it is fruitless to search for causal relations" (Van Lier 1996:38). (Finch, 2001a, p. 105). Further:
Thus, AR does not seek for causal relationships, but attempts simply to describe the interaction of local variables and to predict the global emergence of learning trends. Rather than claiming that results are dependent on research, therefore, AR investigates the participants and their perceptions, in order to positively influence them, often through raised awareness (on the part of the participants) of the existence and nature of the variables. Finally, the 4th question (table 2) looks at external validity. Once more, this is not an issue for AR, since its purpose is to affect the immediate learning situation. If the results are of interest to other practitioners, then this can be seen as a bonus side-effect. However, Action researchers are saying no more (and no less) than ¡°This is the issue which I investigated. This is how I collected and interpreted the data. This is how I fed my interpretation back into the learning environment. These are the changes I subsequently observed.¡± Hence, AR is different from other research in a number of ways:
The seemingly ordinary process of identifying a problem in the local classroom, and of attempting to find a solution for that problem, is in itself an act of research, and needs to be carried out systematically in order for reliable results to emerge. Such research is immediately valid, in that it impacts the local situation. Given the complex, dynamic nature of every language class, and the subjective nature of the inquiry, the ¡°results¡± of such research cannot be used to infer conclusions about other similar classes. This fact, however, does not detract from the fact that AR activities do indeed qualify as research by:
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
3. How to use AR An important aspect of AR is that it is carried out by the practitioner, who, in the case of EFL studies, is the classroom teacher. AR is thus a means of empowering the teacher by helping him/her to positively affect his/her own situation (and that of the students). Elementary, Secondary and Tertiary teachers therefore need to believe in themselves as agents of change, and should become actively involved in examining and reporting upon their classrooms. While not wishing to generalize beyond the scope of those classrooms, it is important to recognise that teachers experience the complex, dynamic EFL learning environment firsthand, and that their research can provide invaluable information for others in the same field: i) teachers in similar situations; ii) researchers in Korea who are not based in the EFL classroom; ii) researchers in other types of institutions; and iv) TESOL/ELT researchers in other countries. Despite its subjective and qualitative nature, AR does not give ¡°carte blanche¡± to teachers to make conclusions about their classrooms based on subjective and intuitive impressions. Such factors are acknowledged as important by AR, but must be supported by rigorous research methods, as with any serious system of inquiry. A number of stages therefore need to be followed and documented:
Stage ii (above) can be further broken down as follows:
3.1. AR instruments Given the qualitative and unsupervised nature of AR, it is important to note that the isolated use of a single research instrument can produce misleading results if undue weight is given to its ¡°findings¡±. Instead, it is advisable to use a number of these instruments in parallel when investigating a classroom problem. In this way, results can be compared and ¡°triangulated¡± with greater confidence in their joint implications. Having made this point, number of descriptive types of research instruments are available for the Acting to implement the plan steps (a to f, above).
Self-assessment forms Learners can benefit greatly from keeping an ongoing record of their learning and of their thoughts about the program of instruction. Teachers can then adjust the program according to this information (formative AR). An example of a self-assessment instrument appears in appendix A. Questionnaires Questionnaires can be a very user-friendly means of investigating the classroom, providing data which is easily quantifiable. However, it is good to remember that the type of closed responses to which questionnaires typically lend themselves (yes/no, true/false, agree/disagree) give information only about the questions asked, and can therefore be misleading. It is important to pay attention to the design of the questions, to ensure that the ¡°problem¡± is comprehensively investigated. Another danger inherent to questionnaires is that students sometimes respond with answers which they feel the teacher would like to see, especially if the questionnaire is administered only once. Finally, the teacher needs to consider the language level of the students carefully, since a questionnaire written in the L2 can easily become a test of comprehension rather than of research. An example of an AR questionnaire appears in appendix B. In this instrument, adapted from Fraser (1996), the perceptions of the learners regarding the learning environment is examined. Observation Observation can be an effective means of identifying and reflective on the classroom, and can take a number of forms. A traditional method of classroom observation is to invite a colleague to ¡°sit in¡± and make notes, after which both practitioners can debrief. Another method is to set up a video camera in the classroom, and to let it run. The initial novelty factor for the learners (and the teacher) soon dissipates, and the video can be watched at the teacher¡¯s convenience. As with language tapes, an advantage of this method is that the video can be watched any number of times, and the teacher can pause on significant sections. Such a practice can highlight aspects of the lesson and of the teacher¡¯s practice of which he/she was unaware, and is therefore to be recommended for its own sake, in addition to the more ostensible purpose of investigating a known problem. Checklists/inventories Checklists provide simple and effective ways of looking at an aspect of the classroom, and can be combined with the observation methods of the previous paragraph. Thus, when the colleague is visiting the class, or when the teacher is watching the video of the class, it can be helpful to have a checklist of items. Below (table 3) is a checklist of teacher-classroom-language, checking for overused classroom-language. Table 3: Checklist of teacher-classroom-language (frequency of phrases) |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Interviews Recording interviews with students and with other teachers can provide interesting data regarding their perceptions of classroom variables. However, responses to the more open-ended questions that are typical of interview sessions can prove difficult to itemize when it comes to interpretation. It is necessary, therefore, to take great care in devising interview questions, to ensure that the interviewees keep to the topic and that there is little ¡°unwanted¡± discourse. As with questionnaires, the language level of the students also needs to be taken into account, so that students feel comfortable in responding, and so that they can express themselves fully. The sample list of interview questions in table 4 (below) shows that it is important to narrow the focus, and to minimize the number of questions, though it can be good to have a ¡°warm-up¡± question in order to ¡°break the ice¡±. This particular interview is again examining student perceptions. Table 4: ¡°Feelings¡± interview.
Teacher-diary |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Information provided by ongoing teaching-diaries is not restricted by multiple choice questions or by checklists. Instead, the observations are free, spontaneous and authentic, providing an interesting and direct perspective on classroom practices. As with other types of AR research, teacher-diaries can often highlight issues that were previously unseen, and can facilitate resolution of those issues, simply by encouraging awareness of the factors involved. Learner-diary Learner diaries are also useful means of observing and promoting the learning process. These can be successfully triangulated with other observational instruments. While it is the purpose of AR research to derive data from learner-journals, the process of writing a journal about the classroom (and associated topics) can often have the result of heightening student awareness of the learning process, thus having a beneficial effect on that process (Finch 2001b). 3.2 Sample issues As already mentioned, AR can prove to be an effective ¡°ground-floor¡± means of investigating EFL classroom problems. It can also bring to light previously unrecognized matters. The following are some representative questions that might be asked when considering the EFL classroom:
4. Conclusion Action research is not an attempt to "scientifically" analyze, dissect and dehumanize learning. Instead, it sees the practitioners of learning (teachers and students) as the most important players in the process. Action research starts with the teacher and student, and is first of all a reflection on the learning process according to these people. Even if teachers do nothing more than keep a teaching diary, and reflect on the ideas that appear in that diary, this is a form of action research, and it will positively affect the learning environment. AR results are valid and reliable, in that they describe the immediate learning environment. Such a description is necessarily subjective, but in view of the fact that the events of the classroom are controlled by subjective participants, AR seeks to positively affect these perceptions by giving them meaning and value. An important characteristic of AR is that it can be done by the teaching practitioner, and that it empowers the people who are at the heart of the teaching/learning process. Korean EFL teachers can therefore feel confident in their AR efforts, and their results will be of interest to other teachers and professionals in other institutions. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
5. Bibliography and references: The brief bibliography which follows contains sources of AR literature. An excellent annotated AR bibliography can be found online at http://langue.hyper.chubu.ac.jp/jalt/pub/tlt/99/dec/cowie.html (Accessed December 26, 2002). Allwright, R.L. & K.M. Bailey (1991). Focus on the language classroom: an introduction to classroom research for language teachers. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Altrichter, H., Posch, P. & Somekh, B. (1993). Teachers investigate their work. London: Routledge. pp. 223. Arrowsmith, R. (1988). Teacher feedback to learner errors. Unpublished assignment. London: Ealing College London. Bailey, K.M., & D.Nunan (Eds.), (1996). Voices From The Language Classroom. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Burns, A., & Hood, S. (Eds.). (1995). Teachers' voices: Exploring course des{gn in a changing curriculum. Sydney: National Centre for English Language Teaching and Research. pp. 137. Burns, A., & Hood, S. (Eds.). (1997). Teachers' voices 2: Teaching disparate learning groups. Sydney: National Centre for English Language Teaching and Research. pp. 160. Cochran-Smith, M., & Lytle, S. (Eds.). (1993). Inside/ Outside: Teacher research and knowledge. New York: Teachers College, Columbia University. pp. 310. Cohen, L. & Manion, L. (1980). Action research. In J. Bell, T. Bush, A. Fox, J. Goodey & S. Goulding, (Eds.). (1984). Conducting Small-scale Investigations in Educational Management. 41-57 London: Harper & Row and the Open University. Collins, U., & McNiff, J. (1999). Rethinking pastoral care. London: Rooutledge. pp.217. Crookes, G. (1993). Action research for second language teachers: Going beyond teacher research. Applied Linguistics, 14 (2), 130-144. Edge, J., & Richards, K. (Eds.) (1993). Teachers develop teachers research: Papers on classroom research and teacher development. Oxford: Heinemann. pp. 197. Elliot, J. (1991). Action research for educational change. Milton Keynes,
Goswami, D., & Stillman, P. (1987). Reclaiming the classroom: Teacher research as an agency for change. Upper Montclair: Boynton Cook. pp. 242. Greenwood, D. (1999). Action research: From practice to writing in an international action research development program. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. pp. 282. Hollingsworth, S. (Ed.) (1997). International action research: A casebook for educational reform. Washington DC: Falmer Press. pp. 337. Kemmis, S., & McTaggert, R. (Eds.) (1988). The action research planner (3rd ed.). Deakin: Deakin University Press. pp. 154. McDonough, J., & McDonough, S. (1997). Research methods for English language teachers. London: Arnold. pp. 262. McKernan, J. (1996). Curriculum action research. A handbook of methods and resources for the reflective practitioner (2nd ed.). London: Kogan Page. pp. 278. McNiff, J. (1988, reprinted 1997). Action research: Principle and practice. London: Routledge.pp.164. McNiff, J. (1993). Teaching as learning: An action research approach. London: Routeledge. pp.125. McTaggert, R. (Ed.). (1997). Participatory action research: International contexts and consequences. New York: SUNY. pp. 282. Miletto, H. (1990). ¡°Self-evaluation form¡±, Young workers¡¯ and youth leaders¡¯ course. Unpublished assignment. London: Ealing College London. Noffke, S. E., & Stevenson, R. B. (Eds.). (1995). Educational action research: Becoming practcally critical. New York: Teachers College, Columbia University. pp. 228. Wells, G., Bernard, L., Gianotti, M. A., Keating, C., Konjevic, C., Kowal, M., Maher, A., Mayer, C., Moscoe, T., Orzechowska, E., Smieja, A., & Swartz, L. (1994). Changing schools from within: Creating communities of inquiry. Toronto: OISE Press. pp. 286. References Allwright, R.L. (1984b). Why don¡¯t learners learn what teachers teach?: the interaction hypothesis. In D. M. Singleton, & D. Little (Eds.). Language Learning in Formal and Informal Contexts. Dublin: Irish Association for Applied Linguistics. 3-18. Finch, A. E. (2001a) Complexity in the language classroom. Secondary Education Research, Vol. 47, pp.105-40 Finch, A. E. (2001b) Reflections: An Interactive and Reflective Learning Journal. Andong: Sungsim Press. Finch, A. E. & Sampson, K. S. (2003). It¡¯s Up to You. (in press). Fraser, B. J. (1996). Classroom Environment. London: Croom Helm. Kemmis, S. & McTaggart, R.
(1982). The Action
Research Planner. Victoria, Nunan, D. (1992). Research Methods in Language Learning. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Rea-Dickins, P. & Germaine, K. (1992). Evaluation. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Stern, H.H. (1983). Fundamental Concepts of Language Teaching, Oxford: Oxford University Press. _________________________________________________________________________________ Appendix A: Final presentation, self-assessment (Finch & Sampson, 2003, p. 242)
= Never = Rarely = Sometimes = Often = As much as possible
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Appendix B: Class Learning Environment (Finch, 2001, p. 79) 1 = We agree strongly. 2 = We agree. 3 = We have no opinion.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
´ë±¸±¤¿ª½ÃºÏ±¸»ê°Ýµ¿ 1370 |