The Language Teacher
December 1999
Action Research: A Tool for Improving Practice in EFL Classrooms
Amanda Hayman
Tokyo Women's Christian University
I first learned about action research (AR) while taking a classroom research course as part of my master's degree work. I was interested to learn that there was a systematic method used by teachers-as-researchers to improve their classroom practice. My curiosity heightened on discovering that my own well-used method of attempting to improve classroom effectiveness by asking students for feedback was part of the AR process.
In 1997 I carried out an AR project which focused on why my students were not speaking English in class after they had agreed that they wanted to speak English. Results of a simple questionnaire in English asking the students for input on this issue revealed that they really did want to speak English but were being held back by a variety of fears, including fear of initiating communication in English. To convey what they themselves had said, I made a series of brightly-colored posters for the blackboard. Observation by myself and a colleague and student feedback indicated a major increase in the amount of English spoken in the classroom during subsequent lessons. This was exciting and increased my confidence as a teacher. However, as I went on to plan my next action research cycle on this issue I started to wonder about other EFL teachers. Were they using AR to investigate their classroom puzzles?
Talking about this action research project with teachers that I met on a daily basis, I discovered that most of them had never heard the term AR before. Others were familiar with the idea of AR but had not used it themselves. In order to find out whether this pattern would be repeated in a wider context, I decided to survey other EFL teachers in Japan. Were they using action research, and if so, how?
Method, Analysis, and Results
The survey population comprised native and non-native EFL teachers at universities and two-year colleges. The questionnaire was piloted on six EFL teachers (three English speakers and three Japanese speakers) for correct rubric, user-friendliness, and appropriate action-research content, and then 212 copies was distributed throughout Japan. Some were sent to teachers individually and some distributed through the JALTCALL e-mail list, but the majority were distributed by colleagues, including participants at an AR retreat held in Nagoya. No tests of reliability or validity was made. Due to the convenience-sampling procedure, findings from the data are limited to the teachers in this study and cannot be used to characterize EFL teachers in Japan.
A total of 108 questionnaires were returned, 70% from native speakers of English. The participants were 55% male, and 40% were aged between 37 and 46. Most of the 64 responders who reported having heard of AR in EFL had done so through a teacher training situation, such as an MEd course or by reading about it in books or journals, and 41 had instigated classroom investigations of this type. The remaining 23 cited shortage of time and lack of know-how as the major reasons why they had not carried out AR projects.
The 41 responders who had used AR were asked in detail how they had carried out their projects and returned a huge variety of responses. About a third of them included all of the six steps often put forth as part of the AR process: (a) identifying a focus issue, (b) gathering information about the issue, (c) using that information to design changes in classroom procedure, (d) implementing this procedure, (e) observing changes this implementation brought about in the classroom, and (f) reflecting on the pedagogical implications of the information this observation yielded (Elliott, 1991, p. 71; Kemmis & McTaggart, 1981, p. 11; Nunan, 1992. p. 19; Whitehead, 1993, p. 54). The rest reported using these action research stages in 22 combinations. Though 28 of the 41 subjects had written up their results, 14 had published in their school journals, 11 had presented findings to their own colleagues, but only 8 had published or presented on a wider scale. Participants reported talking about their research to colleagues (two-thirds), friend or partner (half), and research group members (a quarter). Over three-quarters indicated that they would use action research again, and almost everyone viewed AR as a valuable resource for improving practice.
Implications
It would appear from the responses to this survey that having been formally taught how to carry out an AR project and having been required to use this knowledge in a training situation played a crucial part in determining whether or not subjects had attempted such research on their own. Lack of know-how was cited as a major reason for not attempting AR, apparently indicating that a hands on approach is required when learning how to carry out AR projects. Finding out about this type of classroom investigation in a primary interface situation (conversations, conferences) rather than through secondary sources (books and journals) could provide subjects at least some of the support available in a formal training situation. It seems, however, that at present the respondents who are doing AR are neither talking about these projects with their uninvolved colleagues, nor making many presentations on this topic at professional conferences. In addition, these teachers appear not to be specifically naming their published AR reports as such, preferring to call them, for example, classroom research.
How can Action Research be made more accessible?
Teachers who have done AR projects have an enormous amount to offer through the sharing of their knowledge on an informal basis, through conversations in staffrooms and conference hallways, and by being prepared, for example, to draw diagrams of an AR cycle for less well-informed colleagues or to talk about their own research projects. I would like to suggest two ways in which such knowledge might be shared.
The first would be offering practical, walking-through-every-step type workshops, so that classroom investigation novices can get a feel for how they could adapt AR to fit their own requirements. Another possibility is an email action research help register set up nationally (and possibly becoming international in the future), so that teachers embarking on their first AR project could be paired with more experienced mentors. The learners could then become mentors themselves in the future, on the each one-teach one model. There are, of course, AR email lists already in existence, but these might feel too public for someone attempting a first project to be comfortable asking for detailed feedback. An action research help register would provide one-to-one advice about the steps involved in doing AR.
Why would I (and other teachers who are experienced in AR) want to give our time and energy to provide this help? AR empowers us to enhance the quality of the educational experience for both ourselves and our students, and while mostly used collaboratively, is the perfect tool for isolated teachers to improve their classroom situation (Nunan, 1992, p. 18; Schmuck, 1997, p. 27). The use of AR to bring about change can help teachers avoid being victims who feel unable to do anything but moan about difficult classroom events. Teachers can instead become change agents who see problems as challenges, an attitude that could influence students and colleagues to think more positively. I believe that all teachers deserve the chance to discover the advantages of using AR for themselves.
References
Cohen, L, & Manion, L. (1994). Research methods in education. (4th ed.). London: Croom Helm.
Elliott, J. (1991). Action research for educational change. Buckingham: Open University Press.
Kemmis, S., & McTaggart, R. (1988). The action research p1anner (3rd ed.). Deakin: Deakin University Press.
Nunan, D. (1992). Research methods in language learning. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Schmuck, R. A. (1997). Practical action research for change. Arlington Heights: Skylight.
Whitehead, J. (1993). The growth of educational knowledge: Creating your own living theories. Bournemouth: Hyde.
Author Profile
Amanda Hayman has been teaching EFL in Japan since 1980. She comes from England, and has just finished her distance M.Ed. in ELT at the University of Manchester. Particularly interested in how the internet can be used for student and teacher education, she has Action Research Links posted at www.angelfire.com/me/mitaka/index.html.
All materials on this site are copyright © by JALT and their respective authors.
For more information on JALT, visit the JALT National Website