This paper discusses the topic of getting started on a process
of action research (AR). I hope that the paper encourages a few
teachers to begin classroom investigations, because it is important
for the TESOL and TEFL profession that we have more teacher-researchers.
Only if we establish action research as a more attractive aspect
of teaching can we avoid the almost complete separation between
research on the one hand and practice on the other (Wallace 1991,
p. 10). This gap between theory and practice has understandably
caused a negative attitude towards theory among teachers. Essentially
this rift has been caused by the predominance of the objective
outsider in TESOL research. Action research offers the possibility
of TESOL teachers providing an insider's view of the teaching
process.
Participant Inquiry
In the nineties there has been an increasing recognition that
we need to look more carefully at the web of interlocking ideas,
choices and decisions that constitute classroom teaching. The
teacher is in an ideal insider position to articulate these complexities
and there is so much to uncover: "The more we look, the more
we find, and the more we realise how complex the teacher's job
is" (Allwright & Bailey, 1991, p. 5). However, the interesting
question this quotation raises is "Who is doing the looking?"
Are we talking about the outsider or the insider doing the looking,
finding and detailing?
Uncovering the Invisible
Action research helps our profession to record and detail the
complexity which Allwright and Bailey refer to. Teachers can best
document significant interventions and modifications in practice
but they may not realise or be able to describe this complexity
until they have begun a process of reflection or reading or both.
A great number of teacher actions are unconscious and routinised.
Indeed it would not be possible to do all the things that a teacher
does in the classroom if all the actions were conscious. In other
words much good practice has become second nature.
Action research is a way to engage with classroom teaching
and bring more of it to a conscious level; a way to uncover what
has become invisible. Once teachers feel engaged and more conscious
of these everyday choices and decisions they are in a better position
to frame appropriate research questions. Teachers, in order to
formulate and answer their questions, "must grope towards
their invisible knowledge and bring it into sight. Only in this
way can they see the classroom with an outsider's eye but an insider's
knowledge" (Barnes, 1975, p. 13).
If action research has two simple ingredients then, they are:
- Opening teachers' eyes to what has become familiar.
- Developing a sustained focus on one aspect of teaching.
This observation and noticing leads to insights, naming what
teachers do and describing and recovering practice so that it
is not lost irretrievably (Naidu, Neeraja, Ramani, Shivakumar
& Viswanatha, 1992, p. 261).
First steps
Action research offers the chance to develop context-orientated
understanding or what Prabhu (1990) calls "a sense of plausibility."
In this section I will discuss how to get started in developing
this sense of plausibility through a process of AR. The first
step is usually identifying an idea. This may start out as a general
idea. "My students don't seem very motivated" is fairly
general, for example. The movement to a focus, for instance, on
increasing the proportion of referential questions to display
questions, provides a much narrower idea or focus.
It is understandable that many teachers' first response to
any idea of conducting research is negative, perhaps even one
of "indifference and downright hostility" (Wallace,
1998, p. 17). There is no answer to this position. AR cannot be
enforced and does not work as a top-down directive (Widdowson
1993, p. 267) or as "duties in addition to those which already
burden them" (Wright, 1992, p. 203). The motivation must
come from the individual teacher or group of teachers.
For teachers who want to make a start there may still be problems
of time. However, as far as AR is concerned there is often no
need for a radical change in the classroom. Becoming a researcher
does not mean that one stops being a teacher. Elliot (1991) stresses
the need to see AR in terms of the continual interrelation between
practice and research.
It is also worth saying that teachers may like to begin small
in terms of their research and may not have to be too ambitious
at first. Allwright (1993) suggests that a good place to start
may be simply getting students to discuss an issue in class rather
than starting with a questionnaire survey in the traditional academic
way. Parrot (1993) is certainly a good place to start because
the research tasks in his book are small scale and can be done
while teaching.
If teachers are motivated to create some time outside the classroom
for reflection, reading and research planning, Allwright and Bailey
(1991) advise starting with a general issue, thinking about the
issue, then deciding what data is needed. This may be good advice
and a general issue may be enough to begin the process, but it
is not always easy to go further. According to Burns (1999), practitioners
new to AR comment that finding a focus and developing a research
question is one of the most difficult parts of the research process.
Further, as Wallace confirms (1998, p. 27), the next important
challenge is to narrow the focus as soon as possible. In other
words, it is important to consider how a general issue can be
made more manageable. The next section suggests possible techniques
for this kind of thinking and decision making.
Narrowing the Focus
I advise (Mann, 1997) the complementary use of focusing circles
(Edge 1992) and mind mapping (Buzan & Buzan, 1996) as techniques
for this kind of decision making. Subsequent feedback from teachers
confirms the usefulness of this combination. My experience of
working with teachers on the Aston Master's in TESOL is that teachers
have little problem in finding a general issue but that this issue
or problem is often too big and, therefore, daunting and demotivating.
Achieving a focus, small enough to manage, which does not balloon
up and become overwhelming, is where focusing circles and mind-mapping
might be useful.
- Focusing circles--This is a technique from Edge (1992, pp.
37-38) through which you can narrow your focus by drawing a small
circle at the center (inside) of a larger one. The issue, topic
or problem is written in the small circle and the larger one
is divided into four segments. In each of these segments an aspect
of the topic is written. One of these four segments then becomes
the center of the next circle and so on. - Mind maps--Most teachers have, at some time, used mind maps
or spider webs. Probably the most comprehensive guide to the
use of mind mapping is provided by Buzan & Buzan (1996).
Here the issue is written at the center of a piece of paper and
related factors branch out from the center.
Teachers at Aston reported that there is a different kind of
thinking involved in the two techniques. The thinking in focusing
circles is selective,you are involved in deciding, you need
to make choices and justify them.. In mind maps,the main
thinking goes into making connections, one thing leads to another.
Most of these teachers felt that of the two, focusing circles
was more productive in finding a focus for AR. There was a feeling
that once a decision had been made, that is, a focus found, then
mind mapping could be used to trace back the connections and see
the small focus within the bigger picture. Significantly, a number
of these teachers report that using both during the AR process
had helped them.
Further Advice on Choosing a Focus
Getting the focus right for the first piece of action research
is very important because these early experiences shape teachers'
attitude and commitment to further action research. As Wallace
(1998, p. 21) advises, try to avoid topics or questions which
are essentially unanswerable. Burns (1999, p. 55) offers similar
advice: (a) avoid questions you can do little about, (b) limit
the scope and duration of your research, (c) try to focus on one
issue at a time, and (d) choose areas of research which are of
direct relevance and interest to yourself and to your school circumstances.
If teachers start with a problem which they want to solve,
they should not be too ambitious. In other words, choose a problem
which has a realistic chance of being solved. For many teachers
it may be more useful to make their AR focus on a puzzle (Alwright,
1993, p. 132). Changing something in what is done is not necessarily
the same as concentrating on a problem. Allwright and Bailey (1991)
see concentrating on a puzzle as a productive way of integrating
research and pedagogy. I suggest that your first piece of AR focus
on a puzzle or a small change in classroom practice, rather than
the biggest problem with the most difficult class.
Questions and Statements
- Wallace (1998, p. 21) provides some basic questions which
are worth asking early on in the AR process. The following are
certainly useful questions to ask but teachers should not be
put off if they cannot answer them. They are only useful if they
help you move on. If they do put you off, ignore them. Teachers
may only be ready to provide answers nearer the end of the AR
process. - Purpose--Why are you engaging in this action research?
- Topic--What area are you going to investigate?
- Focus--What is the precise question you are going to ask
yourself within that area? - Product--What is the likely outcome of the research, as you
intend it? - Mode--How are you going to conduct the research?
- Timing--How long have you got to do the research? Is there
a deadline for its completion? - Resources--What are the resources, both human and material,
that you can call upon to help you complete the research? - Fine tuning--As you proceed with your research, do you suppose
you will have to rethink your original question?
In fact, it may be more profitable to start by making a series
of statements as Kemmis and McTaggart (1988, p. 18) suggest. For
example,
- I would like to improve the...
- Some people are unhappy about ... What can I do to change
the situation? - I have an idea I would like to try out in my class.
Talking Out Your Ideas
Once teachers have narrowed their focus, answered the questions
above or made some rudimentary statements, or both, about what
they intend to do, it is ideal if they can talk over ideas with
a colleague or another interested teacher. Teachers working on
AR projects often report the value of having the space to articulate
their ideas. One Aston master's participant expresses this role
of talking:
Don't you think that any successful piece of work is seldom
done alone? Sachiko made some good comments at Nagoya that made
me rethink my approach... then discussions on the IBC discussion
group really helped me develop. That's why these email discussion
groups are important. Because talking about it helps you think
and rethink. (IBC - International Business Communication email
group)
There are interesting comments here on the way ideas develop
through opportunities for talk. It is significant that this master's
participant also sees both face-to-face (in Nagoya) and email
discussion as talking about it. email discussion is seen as one
of a number of valuable tools or forums for the development of
a research focus, pinning down an idea. Indeed, there are strong
grounds (Cowie 1997, Russell & Cohen, 1997) for supposing
that email has clear advantages for the development of teachers'
reflective dialogue or "dialogic understanding" (Bakhtin
1973, p. 944). Certainly an email relationship with another teacher
interested in AR can be a viable alternative to face-to-face support.
It is worth making the point that AR is often an individual
undertaking but can be supported by other teachers. Burns's (1999)
account of AR is very much a collaborative one and if it possible
to conduct AR as a group, this may provide a more supportive environment.
It is clearly beneficial to be supported, and collaborative group
work may be desirable for many. However, autonomous action researchers
supported by other like-minded teachers may have some advantages
over groups within schools or teaching centers. Working in groups
can be a mixed blessing and Russell and Cohen (1997) attest to
the benefits of working with someone from outside the teaching
context who acts as a sounding board. One final reservation about
the kind of collaborative work that Burns describes is that it
can lead to a tendency to offer suggestions and advice rather
than act as an honest understander. In this sense collaboration
may short-circuit the kind of cooperative understanding that Edge
(1992) outlines--advice and suggestions may get in the way of
the development of an individual's AR ideas. Clearly, however,
some support is desirable, and you should look for collaborative
or cooperative opportunities, if possible.
Problems with Action Research
In terms of beginning AR, forewarned is forearmed, and Nunan
(1993), while being very positive about the possible benefits
of AR, takes account of the principle problems that teachers face
when conducting this kind of research. These include lack of time,
expertise and support. He also mentions the fear of being revealed
as an incompetent teacher (and this may be an important reason
why collaboration with a teacher outside your teaching context
is desirable). At a later stage there is also the fear of producing
a public account of the research, which then becomes available
for a wider (unknown) audience. Nunan provides some possible solutions:
(a) having individuals with training in research methods available
to provide assistance, (b) requesting release time from face-to-face
teaching, and (c) setting up of collaborative focus teams. Burns
(1999, p. 45-52) also has an excellent section on constraints
and how to work with them. If you are pressed, my advice would
be not to think about any problems until they hit you. Start positive:
There may not be any problems!
Conclusion
Despite the possible problems listed above, most teachers find
action research stimulating and rewarding. However, there is no
theoretical or practical substitute for getting started. Begin
with a few small scale observations (to train the insider's eye).
You will then be in a position to choose a focus, narrow that
focus and devise a series of steps or stages in order to investigate
your focus.
With increasing use of internet we live in exciting times;
the possibilities for connecting our insider views with the views
of others are increasing. For those who are not fortunate to work
in contexts where they have colleagues that support their aspirations
and development, the prospect of joining other committed teacher-researchers
is a positive and eye-opening one. The internet and action research
are an exciting combination in combating the isolation of teachers
(Wallace, 1998). AR--you ready?
References
Allwright, D. & Bailey, K. M. (1991). Focus on the Language
Classroom. Cambridge: CUP.
Allwright, D. (1993). Integrating "research" and
"pedagogy": Appropriate criteria and practical possibilities.
In J. Edge & K. Richards (Eds.), Teachers Develop Teachers
Research (pp. 125-135). Oxford: Heinemann.
Bakhtin, M. (1990). Marxism and the philosophy of language.
(L. Mtejka & I.R. Titunik, Trans.). In Bizzell, P. & Herzberg,
B (Eds.), The rhetorical tradition, (pp. 932-954). Boston:
St. Martins.
Barnes, D. (1975). From communication to curriculum.
Harmondsworth: Penguin.
Burns, A. (1999). Collaborative action research for English
language teachers. Cambridge: CUP.
Buzan, T., & Buzan, B. (1996). The mind map book: How
to use radiant thinking to maximise your brain's untapped potential..
London: Plume.
Cowie, N. (1997). Collaborative journalling: Using the structure
of cooperative development to become a more reflective teacher.
Explorations in Teacher Education: Newsletter of the JALT Teacher
Education N-SIG, 5 (4), 4-21.
Edge, J. (1992). Cooperative development. Harlow: Longman.
Elliot, J. (1991). Action research for educational change.
Kemmis, S, and McTaggart, R., 1988. The Action Research
Planner. Third Edition. Geelong, Victoria: Deakin University
Press.
Mann, S., 1997. `Focusing circles and mind mapping. IATEFL
Newsletter 136 18-19.
Naidu, B., Neeraja, K., Ramani, E., Shivakumar, J., & Viswanatha,
V., 1992. Researching heterogeneity; an account of teacher-initiated
research into large classes. ELT Journal 46/3: 252-263.
Nunan, D., 1993. Action research in language education. In
Edge J and Richards K. 1993. Teachers Develop Teachers Research.
Oxford: Heinemann.
Russell, A.L.,& Cohen, L.M., 1997. The reflective colleague
in e-mail cyberspace: A means for improving university instruction.
Computers & Education. 29(4) 137-145.
Parrot, M., 1993. Tasks for Language Teachers. Cambridge:
CUP.
Wallace, M., 1991. Training Foreign Language Teachers;
A Reflective Approach. Cambridge: CUP.
Wallace, M., 1998. Action Research for Language Teachers.
Cambridge: CUP.
Widdowson, H. G., 1993. Innovation in teacher development.
Annual Review of Applied Linguistics. (13) 260-265.
Wright, T., 1992. L2 classroom research and L2 teacher education:
towards a collaborative approach. In J., Flowerdew, M., Brock
and S., Hsia. (Eds.) Perspectives in Second Language acquisition.
Hong Kong: CPHK.
