Recent Changes

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.

Difficult balancing act - to give feedback - (Correcting what is wrong - explaining why it is wrong - seeking understanding and clarification from teachers- going on to affirm practice and seek new understandings)
P1 and P2 level teachers seemed to be in different camps- P1 teachers reluctant to share practice and concern - 2 teachers seemed to be doing most of the sharing
Reflections on Professional Learning:
Extracted and elaborated from CRPP PRESENTATION TO MOE STAFF TRAINING DIVISION
Wednesday, June 21, 2006
- How do we 'safely' and effectively challenge teachers' (tacit and /or underlying) beliefs and practices - variations on a theme - depends on variables such as relationship established between MT and teacher, practice/belief being questioned, temporal and contextual (within a group- its composition, one -to-one etc) factors
-

There are SIGs and there are SIGs.
No agenda set.
I was told I was going to meet the P1 teachers to help them create a writing programme,in light of PERI/HA briefing/workshop they had attended.
I was told the teachers were in the middle of doing standardisation marking for P1 mastery test.
I was asked to look through their rubric and give some comments.
Initial response (to myself initially and to the group as a whole later) - the rubric should not be given to teachers 'fresh' for the standardisation ex. - should trial or beta-test the rubric and use live script from a class of scripts as professional learning opportunity - problems, issues and concern with rubric and the text type it is being asked to assess
- Problem of articulation of criteria and standards - inter-rater reliability - what do they understand of the criteria in relation to the texts?
Working with teachers from a department or levels who have not been through ELIS courses is an entirely different kettle of fish.
How should we approach their professional learning, especially if there is only an acting EL SH at hand.

Working with teachers from a department or levels who have not been through ELIS courses is an entirely different kettle of fish.
How should we approach their professional learning, especially if there is only an acting EL SH at hand.
Its like working with a class of pupils. Some are attentive, some are laidback, some wish they were somewhere else!
A senior looking teacher looked exasperated and agitated as I went through a rubric that a teacher from the AL team had designed for them to use for their P1 mastery test. After an hour or so she was more attentive and focussed on my feedback.
Difficult balancing act - to give feedback - (Correcting what is wrong - explaining why it is wrong - seeking understanding and clarification from teachers- going on to affirm practice and seek new understandings)
P1 and P2 level teachers seemed to be in different camps- P1 teachers reluctant to share practice and concern - 2 teachers seemed to be doing most of the sharing

There are SIGs and there are SIGs.
Working with teachers from a department or levels who have not been through ELIS courses is an entirely different kettle of fish.
How should we approach their professional learning, especially if there is only an acting EL SH at hand.

Teacher as Researcher (Quotes by Lawrence Stenhouse)
The{http://revistaescola.abril.com.br/img/historia/022-laurence-01.jpg}
The teacher is standardized plants. UnderUnder such conditions the prescription. …both…both teachers and
Real classrooms have to be our laboratories, and they are in the command of teachers, not of researchers.
This is the characteristic of professional schools: the research act must conform to the obligations of the professional context.

Carried out and filmed lesson on writing with P4 Res from 8.30 - 9.30 (they were having their oral exams).
a reader.
HAd conferecing with a number of pupils.
QUite obvious, that it was a new, novel expereince for them.
AdelieAdeline shared that
Asked her what woukd happen if she did not feel like writing for the exam paper. She was stumped.
Told her that writing was a skill that we could work on and improve with thoughtful and focussed practice.
Not sure whether she 'bought it'.
Brandon had completed his second draft.
When we read through it , he spotted some grammtical errors and wanted to correct them straightaway. Advised him to read through whole work again, more slowly and to read like a reader.
Luqman showed me his writer's box and his intention to redo his introduction. His intro for both drafts were unchanged!
Should I have gone through and redone another writing goals form or activity to remind and show then how their articulated goals will impact what and how they do thier revisions. Sigh...

{DSC_3465.JPG}
{DSC_3467.JPG}
{DSC_3468.JPG}
{DSC_3472.JPG}
{DSC_3474.JPG}
Nitty Gritty
- IS review of their criteria of a good story imminent? - Should I show them a good short story and ask them why it is good? WIth reference to their list- what would they add now? (intergrating writing n reading)