See

discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/242479384

Action Research: Exploring Teaching Practice

Article

CITATIONS READS

0 104

1 author:

Richard Donato
University of Pittsburgh
35 PUBLICATIONS 1,190 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Practice-Based Language Teacher Education View project

Integrated Performance Assessment View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Richard Donato on 01 June 2015.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file. All in-text references underlined in blue are added to the original document
and are linked to publications on ResearchGate, letting you access and read them immediately.
 Action Research: Exploring Teaching Practice

Richard Donato
University of Pittsburgh

Professional Development and the English Language Teacher

No area of education is as complex and pervasive as the professional development of practicing

teachers. Despite strong recommendations for continual professional development, efforts to
educate and renew practicing foreign language teachers are largely assigned to periodic
workshops and yearly professional conference attendance. It is ironic that, despite the
realization that ongoing professional development is central to the success of language
education, research into teacher education has shown repeatedly that the benefits gained from
one-day “how-to” workshops are limited and transitory. Thus, a critical question is how can
teachers engage in on-going professional development in ways that make a difference to their
practice, connect to their lives as teachers, and ultimately improve learning and instruction.
Closely connected to this issue is finding ways to create self-renewing opportunities for teachers
to participate in this substantive form of professional development given the demands and time-
intensive nature of teaching in universities in Thailand.

Action Research and the English Language Teacher

One area that has recently been seen as potentially useful for weaving long-term professional
development into the lives of teachers is the establishment of action research networks among
teachers. In this way, teachers form communities of collaboration and change (Fullan, 2000)
through the introduction of action research into their own classrooms. Through action research,
teachers investigate closely a self-selected area of interest with a view towards seeing learning
in a new light and thinking in alternate ways about instruction. This process, far from
burdensome, is linked directly to the lives of teachers, is centrally situated in their classrooms,
and is constituted through their interactions with students. Action research means innovation
and change through on-going collaborative dialogue with colleagues in an effort to see teaching
and learning in new ways and improve student learning. Action research is conducted by
teachers, not merely on teachers by researchers who often lack knowledge of daily life in
classrooms.

1
What follows is a brief discussion of action research, as I conceive it and have used it with my
own students at the University of Pittsburgh and in Thailand with English language instructors at
Chulalongkorn University Language Institute and at various other universities as part of the
Collaborative Research Network project. After explaining action research, I will present some of
the questions that Thai teachers have raised during my workshops. These topics represent
concerns that are specific to the Thai context of English language instruction and areas of
investigation that would contribute to a better understanding of English language instruction in
Thai universities.

The Action Research Process

Recently Allwright (2005) has suggested that the term action research is highly charged with
notions of experimental research and, for this reason, is largely concerned with fulfilling the
requirements of experimental studies than with understanding the lived experience of teachers.
For this reason, Allwright suggests that the term ‘exploratory practice’ is better suited for the
work of the teacher researcher rather than action research. His major claim is that action
research has focused too much on intervention and problem solving rather than on first
understanding the complexities of language classroom life. Allwright’s suggestions for a re-
orientation to action research is much needed, having observed myself many teachers
becoming too concerned with ‘fixing problems’ in classrooms rather than arriving at an
understanding of the nature of the problem itself. Morever, Allwright suggests that action
research that focuses on ‘fixing problems’ is often approached as a one-time occurrence in a
teacher’s life rather than as al sustainable exploration of a teacher’s practice and a professional
habit of thought and way of conceiving one’s work.
The 4-part model that I have developed was based on various sources in literature on Action
Research and involves a cycle of thinking, acting, reflecting, and re-thinking (Allwright, 2005;
Kemmis, S., & McTaggart, 1988; Mills, 2003; Stringer, 1996; Wallace, 2000; Burnaford, Fgischer,
& Hobson, 2001; Hopkins, 1993; Hartman, 1998; Freeman, 1988; Burns, 1999; Cochran-Smith &
Lytle, 1999). Similar to Allwright’s notion of exploratory practice, the model’s primary goal is to
identify areas of teaching that the instructor wants to understand better and to engage in a cycle
of working with evidence to deepen understanding of the nature of the problem and to improve
instruction. This orientation differs from an interventionist approach that pre-determines a
remedy to a problem or concern that is then implemented and assessed. Rather, this model
emphasizes that seeing and engaging in teaching differently requires first an understanding of
the context of instruction and the realization that one’s beliefs and attitudes are intimately
connected to the exploration process. Rather than establishing an action plan, as is often done

2
in classic models of action research, this approach seeks to identify and understand
instructional situations, or ‘puzzles’ in Allwright’s words, so that principled and well reasoned
actions and alternatives can be planned and assessed based on evidence and understanding.

Through this model, teachers are introduced to the tools of action research. Teachers explore
thinking tools in the form of areas of focus and questions to be explored. Teachers discover that
research involves a clear area of focus and questions that permit rich descriptions rather than
naïve comparison of methods or quick fix interventions. Additionally they learn that the best
research always grows out of situations that are within their locus of control, that they feel
passionate about, and that they would like to change or improve.

The process of identifying an area of focus and establishing exploratory questions is far from
neutral and requires an intimate relationship with one’s beliefs about teaching, the nature of
language and learning, and the learners. Identifying an instructional problem or puzzle always
leads to confronting one’s own values and beliefs about the relationship of theory, practice, and
schooling and the effectiveness of one’s own work as a teacher. A critical component of action
research is reconnaissance, or the recognition of one’s own contribution to creating positive
educational change or maintaining mediocre or ineffective practice (Mills, 2003). As teachers
explore their areas of focus, a supportive community of exploration is forged. Teachers grow
together professionally and personally, as colleagues and friends, and learn how to respect and
accept each other’s divergent experiences and opinions.

Once areas of exploration and questions are established, teachers discuss the actions that are
needed to gather evidence, explore concerns, and answer these questions. The teachers learn
that answers to questions could be found by collecting data through personal experience,
inquiry into their classrooms, and a systematic examination of teaching practice and student
learning (Mills 2003). The tools of inquiry they explored as data collection techniques involved
direct participant observation of their own instruction and learners, the use of surveys,
interviews, and questionnaires, and the examination of existing documents such as lesson plans,
videotapes, grades, journals, questionnaires, interviews, and student work samples. We
discussed the importance of multiple perspectives on an issue. We concluded that no single
instrument or test can capture the complexity of instruction and that information needs to be
triangulated to be credible and valid. In action research of the exploratory kind, the goal shifts
from the controlled setting of the laboratory and intervention to the uncontrollable and
unpredictable life of a classroom and innovation.

3
Exploratory action research findings give way to locally constructed knowledge and
understandings of one’s own students, classroom, and foreign language program. Based on
these discussions and distinctions, the Thai instructors left sessions ready to begin their studies
of their lives as teachers and the world of language learning of their students. Armed with a well-
focused area for investigation and questions that could be answered using a variety of
classroom-based tools for collecting evidence, the teachers returned to the classroom prepared
to initiate their projects, to collect information, and to make new discoveries to allow them to re-
think practice

Exploring the Thai EFL Classroom

Based on my work with Thai teachers, I list several topics of interest that emerged in our
discussions. I summarize briefly the topics in the hope they will identify areas of focus that are
particular to the Thai teaching context and inspire other teachers to engage in their own
research on these important topics. These focus areas were identified as Thai teachers
reflected and discussed with each other what potential inquiries they could make into their own
programs and practice. I will list these topics as WH-questions rather than noun phrases. The
decision to cast topics as questions comes largely from the tradition of teacher research which
seeks to describe a classroom phenomenon to understand it better rather than seek simplistic
yes or no answers to research questions based on working hypotheses, dependent and
independent variables, or a laboratory experiment. Note also that questions are written in such a
way that their answers require rich descriptions of events, participants, and interactions. Only
through rich descriptions can teachers explore their classrooms, change their professional
practice in principled ways, or deepen their personal understanding of thorny issues. Finally,
the questions are written using the pronoun ‘we,’ since the areas of exploration identified often
were shared among several teachers across universities and within the same workshop.

Questions:

1) What are the challenges of teaching large classes? How can we re-organize instruction to
address the needs of large classes?

2) How do we effectively use technology and integrate technology into our instruction?

4
3) Given the diverse abilities of students in classes, how can we differentiate our approach and
our assignments in the same class?

4) How can we enable our students to use English to express their own ideas on important
topics rather than ‘cut and paste’ and copy information from websites?

5) How can we increase interpersonal communication in the classroom?

6) How might we implement portfolio assessment in large classes?

7) How might we incorporate group work effectively into large classes?

8) What types of tasks help learners communicate better? How can tasks be designed to
support language learning?

9) What types of questions do students ask in EFL classes and what do these questions reveal
about their approach to learning English and the understanding that they are developing?

10) How can our present activities be redesigned to allow for more communication in the
classroom?

Action Plans and Planning for Action

Action research is a reflective cycle of planning for action leading to future action plans that can
be carried out and more fully investigated. The questions above represent a teacher’s cycle of
discovery and reflection that assesses conditions in the present for future pedagogical actions,
instructional understanding and innovations, and research refinements. The questions suggest a
focus on understanding perplexing issues such as, teaching large classes, redesigning
communicative activities to allow greater focus on language, and the challenges of teaching
various ability levels. All studies imply the need for collecting more information from students to
establish a clearer perspective on student learning, pedagogical approaches, and curriculum. It
is clear that these teachers understand the challenges of life in the EFL classroom

It is hoped that, all the teachers who participated in these action research sessions have
developed the tools for greater understanding of student learning, language teaching, and the

5
issues that face the profession. Exploring and reflecting on one’s practice is not an additional
burden to what we do as teachers. It is fundamental and at the core of accomplished teaching.
As one of my own students pointed out to me this past year as she began her action research
project for her MAT degree, action research is what teachers should always do, since it is
fundamentally “reflective practice.” Unlike other forms of professional development, action
research goes far beyond the “what-to-do-on-Monday- morning” approach to teaching. It is
continual, reflective, and renewing and, as such, represents perhaps our best effort at
connecting teachers to their practice and building understandings that cannot be captured in
teaching methodology textbooks or other generic educational recommendations. As one
teacher stated, participation in the action research workshop provided a supportive network of
teachers that allowed her to explore and understand her own issues and to learn the true
meaning of teacher empowerment.

6
 References

Allwright, D. (2005). Developing principles for practitioner research: The case of exploratory
practice. Modern Language Journal, 89, 355-366.
Burnaford, G., J. Fischer, & D. Hobson, (Eds.). (2001). Teachers doing research: The power of
action through inquiry (2nd ed.). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Publishers
Burns, A. (1999). Collaborative action research for English language teachers. New York:
Cambridge University Press.
Cochran-Smith, M., & Lytle, S. L. (1993). Inside outside: Teacher research and knowledge. New
York: Teachers College Press.
Freeman, D. (1998). Doing teacher research: From inquiry to understanding. Boston: Heinle &
Heinle.
Fullan, M. (2000). Change forces: The sequel. Philadelphia: Falmer Press.
Hartman, D. K. (Ed.). (1998). Stories teacher tell: Reflecting on professional practice.
Lincolnwood, IL: National Textbook Company.
Hopkins, D. (1993). A teacher’s guide to classroom research. (2nd ed.). Buckingham, UK: Open
University Press.
Kemmis, S., & McTaggart, R. (1988). The action research planner. Geelong, Victoria: Deakin
University Press.
Mills, G. E. (2003). Action research: A guide for the teacher researcher. Upper Saddle River, NJ:
Merrill/Prentice Hall.
National Standards in Foreign Language Education Project. 1996 Standards for foreign
language learning: Preparing for the 21st century. Yonkers, NY: ACTFL.
Stringer, E. (1996). Action research, A Handbook for practitioners. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage
Publications.
Wallace, M. J. (2000). Action research for language teachers. New York: Cambridge University
Press.

View publication stats