The Language Teacher
July 2000

Action Research and Applied Research: What are the Relationships?

Anne Burns

Currently there is considerable interest in action research (AR) in the language teaching field. The December 1999 issue of The Language Teacher, for example, was devoted entirely to this subject. Action research is now frequently promoted as a new way for teachers to develop professionally and to investigate their classroom practice. But, despite the growth of new publications now discussing action research, would-be teacher researchers are not always necessarily clear about what action research is, or how it relates to other kinds of applied research in the second language teaching field with which they may already be familiar.

Take, for example, the following comment from a teacher with whom I recently worked on an action research project (see Burns, 1999).

My experience of doing action research is that it is difficult to grasp or explain the concept until one is in the process of doing it. It is in the doing that it starts to make sense and become clear. (Jane Hamilton, personal communication)

On the JALT Teacher Education SIG action research listserv, Dale Griffee recently raised the issue of how AR relates to other kinds of research that aim to have applications to second language teaching and learning:

What is the difference between AR and applied research? The answer has to be a characteristic that is not the case for applied research. I don't think we can say that AR is done by teachers, and that is its defining characteristic, because applied research is also done by teachers all the time. What are the characteristics that set AR aside and mark it as different?

This question is useful and challenging. In my experience, it is one that is frequently asked by teachers new to action research: How is action research different from other research? Action research and applied research are in some ways similar and overlapping, but there are also important differences between them. In this article I will attempt to draw out some of these similarities and differences, and address, in particular, the question of what characterises action research. I'll focus this exploration by first considering two hypothetical examples of research that might be carried out on the topic of classroom strategies to enhance oral interaction.

Example 1

As part of the introduction of a new syllabus, a researcher wishes to know whether the use of group work will improve students' ability to speak English. The researcher first consults the literature on this area of research and decides on the approach and methods to be used. The researcher's hypothesis is "Group work will increase the development of both fluency and accuracy in oral tasks." The researcher assigns one group of students in a school to an experimental group, where all classroom tasks are conducted through group work for a period of two months. An equal number of students (the control group) are taught using the same tasks through a whole-class, teacher-fronted approach for the same period. In order to ensure that the students in the experimental group are not at higher levels of language learning to begin with, the researcher first administers a test. She then assigns students to the groups on the basis of the test results. At the end of the two months, each of the groups is given a further identical test in order to see whether the use of group work has resulted in higher results for the experimental group. The results show that the students assigned to group work have performed at a higher level in relation to fluency, but that their performance on some aspects of grammatical accuracy is lower than the control group. The researcher publishes the findings of the study in a journal.

Example 2

As part of the introduction of a new syllabus, a researcher decides to move away from the use of whole-class speaking activities in his classroom. He decides to introduce more group work for certain tasks and to observe how the students react. He assigns students to groups and keeps a journal noting down his observations over a period of two weeks. At the end of this period, he notes that some students are not participating in the group tasks and are increasingly reluctant to work in groups. He decides that students are unused to this approach and need more practice. He increases the use of group work and assigns students to the same groups. He also asks the students to complete a survey on their responses to group work. His own observation and journal entries, as well as the surveys indicate that students are becoming even more reluctant to do group work. The teacher discusses the problem with some colleagues who suggest he tries letting students choose their own groups. The teacher tries this strategy over a further period of one week and notes that students are less reluctant. He also observes that the groups do not remain static, but appear to change according to the task. He decides to try a further approach of giving students a choice of tasks. This approach works even better and interaction amongst the students increases noticeably.

You may have already decided (correctly) that the first is an example of applied research, while the second reflects an action research approach. Both of these examples are, of course, simplified and idealised, but they do perhaps serve to draw out some of the essential similarities and differences between action research and applied research.

The first thing to note is that both approaches adopt a scientific perspective (Cohen and Manion, 1994) on the issues they are investigating. In other words, they are both concerned to go beyond intuitions or assumptions, and to use a systematic approach to asking questions, collecting data, analysing the data, and drawing out conclusions and interpretations from the findings. However, there are differences in the approach. The first study adopts an objective stance in which the researcher attempts to control variables that may affect the findings and to identify possible relationships between the treatment (group work) and the outcomes (increases in fluency and accuracy). The action researcher is not interested in establishing relationships of this type, but instead wants to find the best possible ways of setting up new classroom activities. This is a more subjective perspective, concerned with exploring different ways of teaching and deliberately changing conditions in the classroom.

Second, they are both concerned with language learning and teaching and aim to find answers to issues that concern practice in the classroom. However, they differ in the way these answers may be applied. The first example is likely to have as one of its goals a contribution to a body of existing knowledge about effective teaching and learning; its findings may be applied in classroom teaching, but these applications may not be immediate. In the second example, the goal of the researcher is much more focused on addressing concrete issues of practical and personal concern. In other words, this research has immediate application; it focuses on discovering more about a specific teaching issue which has significance for the researcher in relation to his own classroom and students.

Third, each researcher adopts a different approach to selecting and using the research methods. The first researcher applies a structured and controlled set of methods, using control and experimental groups and guarding against threats to validity through pre- and post testing. This is because one aim of the study is to generalise beyond this specific research situation to other comparable situations. The second researcher uses a much more open-ended approach, selecting and changing the methods as needed and as new insights emerge. His concern is with his own situation and with the solution of practical classroom issues.

A fourth area to consider is that of theory. Both applied and action research may be concerned with theory, but the theoretical ideas will probably be developed in very different ways. Applied research will usually be concerned with connecting with and testing out a body of existing theory; it will draw substantially upon the literature in a particular research area, in order to provide a theoretical base for the study. This is why the researcher in the first example consults the literature and draws from this the methodological approach for the research. In contrast, the action researcher is interested in understanding what his explorations reveal. In other words, personal knowledge becomes the basis for developing one's own theories about teaching and learning (see Burns, 1996 on teacher theories).

This brief discussion highlights some of the major differences and similarities between the two types of research. Each type could well be carried out by the same person, who may also be a teacher at the school (although, in comparison with academic researchers, teachers often find it difficult to obtain the time and resources to carry out experimental applied research -- but that's another whole discussion!). The main point is that the overall approach adopted is very different in each case and is used for different purposes.

What then can we say about what characterises action research? For me, action research has the following distinguishing features:

It emerges from concrete problems, issues, puzzles or questions that are of importance and concern to the people involved within their own social context. From an educational perspective, these people may include teachers, students, program administrators, parents, curriculum developers, teacher educators and others. Action research is not, however, confined to classrooms. Studies have been carried out in prisons, hospitals, community groups, businesses and industry and so on.
It has a practical focus (the action component) which involves identifying the area of concern and acting to change it. This means acting to improve something or to do something more effectively, and systematically observing the effects of the action (the research component).
It is (usually, but not always) small-scale, focusing on local needs and the immediate context, with all its complexity, as the environment for the research. In other words, it does not attempt to control that environment in any way, but looks at how issues can be addressed as they exist in that environment.
The processes and outcomes of the research should relate to the goals, values and beliefs of the people in the environment and be compatible with their social and working conditions. In other words, the research should provide a sense of personal meaning and development for those involved.
The methods should be feasible and within the scope of the researcher's usual practice. Ideally, the action researcher should choose a range of methods which are achievable and do not interfere too much with daily practice. In my own work with teachers, I usually stress that many teaching techniques (eg. surveys, interviews, journals, recordings) can be adapted for data collection.
It involves cycles of action and reflection which are linked by the data collection and the researcher's developing knowledge. It is difficult to determine a finishing point for these cycles; they could continue for as long as the individual or group feel that the research is producing change and improvement in the social context.
It is a reflexive activity which brings to light unconscious ways of doing things and enables the researcher to develop personal theories based on goals, values, and beliefs about practice (personal, here, also refers to those shared by groups involved in collaborative research).

Many teachers, busy enough already with program and lesson preparation, teaching loads, marking, and the demands of the syllabus set out by the organisation or Monbusho, feel quite daunted by the thought of taking on the extra role of researcher. To do research, after all, is not why you may have become a teacher!

However, action research is an approach which -- as many teachers I have worked with have said -- is not only feasible, but gives an exhilarating edge to their teaching. I have often heard comments about the sense of empowerment and affirmation that action research provides. It seems to me that this is because action research focuses on learning through action in order to understand better what you do as a teacher and why you do it. It is a way of refreshing your teaching practice and enhancing your knowledge about teaching in the living laboratory of your own classroom.

If you would like to try some action research, but are not sure where to start, why not get together with some of your colleagues and have a go at completing some of these statements. I can guarantee that pretty soon you'll find something to research!

We don't know enough about...
Our students don't seem to... What can we do about this?
I'd like to change the way my students... Does anyone else have this problem and what do you do about it?
I'd like to integrate more ...into my class. How could I do this?
We'd like to try out ... What would happen if we ...?
I've noticed that some students in my class... and others ... How could I find out what is happening here?
I'm really puzzled by ... What do others think is going on? What could I do about it?

Note

Anne Burns will be a plenary speaker at the JALT2000 conference in Shizuoka from November 2 to 5. If you have questions about action research that may be addressed in this plenary, please email her on anne.burns@mq.edu.au

References

Burns, A. (1996). Starting all over again: From teaching adults to teaching beginners. Teacher learning in language teaching. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Burns, A. (1999). Collaborative action research for English language teachers. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Cohen, L. and Manion, L. (1994). Research methods in education. London: Croom Helm.