Extracted from: Action research: an evolving paradigm? Anne Burns (1999)
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
framework of experiences as:
1. exploring: feeling one’s way into research topics
2. identifying: fact finding to begin refining the topic
3. planning: developing an action plan for gathering data
4. collecting data: using initial data-gathering techniques related to the action
5. analysing/reflecting: analysing data to stimulate early reflections
6. hypothesising/speculating: predicting based on analysis/ reflection
7. intervening: changing and modifying teaching approaches
8. observing: noticing and reflecting on the outcomes of the changes
9. reporting: verbalising and theorising the processes and outcomes
10. writing: documenting accounts of the research
11. presenting: giving reports/presentations on the research
It seems that AR in practice is much ‘messier’ than most models suggest.
Amongst some of the major goals that can be identified in AR associated to date with the field of language teaching are:
_ 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
researcher seeks to create
Among the benefits of educational AR identified by Kemmis & McTaggart (1982: 2–5) are that teachers develop skills in:
_ thinking systematically about what happens in the school or classroom
_ implementing action where improvements are thought to be possible
_ monitoring and evaluating the effects of the action with a view to continuing the improvement
_ monitoring complex situations critically and practically
_ implementing a flexible approach to school or classroom
_ making improvements through action and reflection
_ researching the real, complex and often confusing circumstances and constraints of the modern school
_ recognising and translating evolving ideas into action.
A. Burns (1999: 14–15) states that the Australian teachers with whom she worked reported that they had experienced:
_ deeper engagement with their own classroom practices
_ a better understanding of research and methods for carrying out research
_ less sense of isolation from other teachers
_ a sense of sharing common problems with other teachers
_ a personal challenge, satisfaction and professional growth
_ heightened awareness of external factors impinging on their classrooms.
Questions concerning the future directions of AR arise in a number of broad
areas.
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?
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?
4. (How) can AR activity in language teaching also address broader issues of curriculum development, social justice and educational political action, thus
contributing to the greater sustainability of effective educational practices?
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.
Action research: an evolving paradigm?
Anne Burns (1999)
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
framework of experiences as:
1. exploring: feeling one’s way into research topics
2. identifying: fact finding to begin refining the topic
3. planning: developing an action plan for gathering data
4. collecting data: using initial data-gathering techniques related to the action
5. analysing/reflecting: analysing data to stimulate early reflections
6. hypothesising/speculating: predicting based on analysis/ reflection
7. intervening: changing and modifying teaching approaches
8. observing: noticing and reflecting on the outcomes of the changes
9. reporting: verbalising and theorising the processes and outcomes
10. writing: documenting accounts of the research
11. presenting: giving reports/presentations on the research
It seems that AR in practice is much ‘messier’ than most models suggest.
Amongst some of the major goals that can be identified in AR associated to date with the field of language teaching are:
_ 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
researcher seeks to create
Among the benefits of educational AR identified by Kemmis & McTaggart (1982: 2–5) are that teachers develop skills in:
_ thinking systematically about what happens in the school or classroom
_ implementing action where improvements are thought to be possible
_ monitoring and evaluating the effects of the action with a view to continuing the improvement
_ monitoring complex situations critically and practically
_ implementing a flexible approach to school or classroom
_ making improvements through action and reflection
_ researching the real, complex and often confusing circumstances and constraints of the modern school
_ recognising and translating evolving ideas into action.
A. Burns (1999: 14–15) states that the Australian teachers with whom she worked reported that they had experienced:
_ deeper engagement with their own classroom practices
_ a better understanding of research and methods for carrying out research
_ less sense of isolation from other teachers
_ a sense of sharing common problems with other teachers
_ a personal challenge, satisfaction and professional growth
_ heightened awareness of external factors impinging on their classrooms.
Questions concerning the future directions of AR arise in a number of broad
areas.
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?
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?
4. (How) can AR activity in language teaching also address broader issues of curriculum development, social justice and educational political action, thus
contributing to the greater sustainability of effective educational practices?
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.