AR+Notes

Extracted from: ====A. Burns (1999) reports that in practice the language teacher researchers with whom she worked in Australia perceived AR as a series of ‘interrelated experiences’ (p. 35) involving eleven identifiable and interactive phases. She goes on to describe this ====
 * Action research: an evolving paradigm? **
 * Anne Burns (1999) **

====_ **to address and find solutions to particular problems in a specific teaching or learning situation ** (Edge, 2001; Hadley, 2003; Wallace, 1998) ====

====_ to **underpin and investigate curriculum change or innovation and to understand the processes that occur as part of an educational change** (A. Burns & Hood, 1995; Lotherington, 2002; Mathew, 1997;Thaine, 2004) ====

====_ to **provide a vehicle for reducing the gaps between academic research findings and practical applications in the classroom** (Crookes, 1993; Dufficy, 2004; Macleod, 2003; Sayer, 2005) ====

====_ to **facilitate the professional development of reflective teachers** (Allwright, 1993; Coles & Quirke, 2001; Kitchen & Jeurissen, 2004; James, 2001) ====

====_ to **acquaint teachers with research skills and to enhance their knowledge of conducting research** (A. Burns, 1999; Crookes & Chandler, 2001; Freeman, 1998; Nunan, 1989a) ====

_ to **enhance the development of teachers’ personal practical theories** (Golombek, 1998)
====Checkland & Holwell (1998) suggest that any piece of research entails three elements: **__a linked framework of ideas and concepts; a way of applying the ideas; an area of interest in which to apply them__**. One way in which AR studies ====

====could be strengthened is for the underlying concepts and methodological processes and assumptions to be made clear, so that the ‘linked framework’ of the research is identifiable and the procedures undertaken made explicit. Thus action researchers ====

====should strive to __provide full and adequate details of the epistemological approaches and assumptions underpinning the research, the specifics of the research context, careful documentation and analysis of data, and explanation of the meanings the__ ====

====1. How should we envisage the **primary purposes and outcomes of AR**? Is it mainly a __vehicle for practitioners’ personal and professional development__, or can it also have __a role in the production of knowledge for the field__? ====

====2. Is AR __simply an accessible version of research for teachers__, or does it also denote an __emerging paradigm with its own epistemology, methodologies and investigative practices? If so, how should standards of quality be addressed?__ ====

====<span style="font-family: 'Calibri','sans-serif';">3. __In what ways can AR open up opportunities for collective forms of knowledge about teaching and learning that are inclusive of academic and teaching communities__? What kinds __of relationships between teachers, teacher educators and researchers will need to emerge to facilitate collective knowledge production__? ====

====<span style="font-family: 'Calibri','sans-serif';">4. (How) can AR activity in language teaching also address broader issues of curriculum development, social justice and educational political action, thus ====

====<span style="font-family: 'Calibri','sans-serif';">Most importantly, if AR is to flourish, the field of language teaching will need to __reflect seriously on how the conditions and opportunities for greater participation by teachers can be enhanced__. ====