Action research

There are many ways in which this study could have been approached, for example it could have been conducted as pure research, which Babbie (2008) describes as

gaining knowledge for its own sake; this type of research could have been

conducted with large numbers of teachers from various institutions. However, given the pressing need at the English language teaching institute where this study took place, applied research, described by Babbie (2008) as knowledge gained and subsequently put into action in the form of action research, was considered to be the most appropriate.

It appears that the term action research was coined in the 1930s by Kurt Lewin (Adelman, 1993). The contribution of Lewin to action research is also acknowledged by McNiff and Whitehead (2006) in their observation that Lewin’s belief was that people would be more motivated in regard to their work if they were permitted to be more involved in making decisions about how their workplaces were run. The term action research incorporates the idea of “reflective thought, discussion, decision and action by ordinary people participating in collective research on ‘private troubles’ that they have in common” (Adelman, 1993, p.8). The idea of a cyclic method of research also originated with Lewin (McNiff & Whitehead, 2006). Therefore, it can be thought of as a form of applied research rather than pure research, which is justified in terms of “gaining knowledge for its own sake” (Babbie, 2008, p. 25). In action research, the gaining of knowledge is only for the purpose of formulating an action plan to improve the situation in which the researchers and colleagues find themselves. Action research is also conducted in cycles which can continue indefinitely for constant improvement and refining, with critical reflection occurring after each cycle. The idea of action research as a

democratic process is addressed by various authors, for example Elliott (1991); and Burton, Brundrett and Jones (2008). Use of the term “democratic” implies

collaboration, participation and ownership on the part of all those involved in the process.

Action research has been variously defined. McNiff and Whitehead (2006) examine various definitions, for example “Unlike traditional social science, action enquiries do not aim for closure, nor do practitioners expect to find certain answers” (p. 30). They go on to state that it is “frequently untidy, haphazard and experimental” (p. 30). Another definition shows that action can be integrated with research

(Department of Education and Training, NSW, 2010). These definitions move attention away from the idea of academics working to prove theories, but rather move attention towards practitioners investigating their own practice in order to improve it. At the same time, the practitioners work collaboratively with other practitioners in an ongoing way to provide long-term monitoring and improvement in their practice. McNiff and Whitehead (2006) point out that action research may be conducted by individuals, but it is always “a participative and collaborative exercise, not individualistic” (p. 39). These authors also show that action

researchers “aim to investigate their practice with a view to improving it” (p. 32). This idea fits precisely with the current study.

Mills (2007) defines action research as “research done by teachers for themselves; it is not imposed on them by someone else” (p. 5). Mills goes on to talk about action research as a four-step process which includes (i) area of focus identification; (ii) data collection; (iii) data analysis and interpretation; and (iv) action plan

development. Yet another definition is provided by Stringer (2008) as “a distinctive approach to inquiry that is directly relevant to classroom instruction and learning, and provides the means for teachers to enhance their teaching and improve student learning” (p. 1). This study was undertaken to discover to what extent English language teachers are prepared to teach grammar and to subsequently improve their knowledge of grammar for the purposes of enhancing their teaching and making better provision for student learning. The definition of purpose which best befits the current study is that of Burns (2000), which states:

In action research, theories are not validated independently and then applied to practice. They are validated through practice. Action research is a total process in which a problem situation is diagnosed, remedial action planned and implemented, and its efforts monitored, if improvements are to get underway. It is both an approach to problem-solving and a problem-solving process. (p. 443)

These various definitions all show that action research is best conducted by those people involved in the particular situation rather than by outsiders observing

without being involved. The other aspect shared by all the definitions is that a plan must ensue to improve the situation, that is, it is not research simply to add to the body of knowledge, but rather research to bring about changes designed to progress and enrich practice.

Stringer (2008) illustrates how action research broadens the nature and function of research. This author juxtaposes validated knowledge as a way of increasing

understanding against a way that ensures democratic and humane processes. Action research brings together these two approaches (the qualitative and the quantitative) in order to validate information and to bring about effective

educational practices which have the power to make a difference to people’s work and lives. Thus, action research is a most suitable methodology when using a mixed method approach.

The use of action research was central to this study as it applies to education. It specifically aimed to bring about improvement in teaching practice, and also aimed to change attitudes as shown by Burns (2000). In this way, there would be an improvement in the quality of teaching based on improvement in teacher understanding and confidence. Action research was also most applicable in this instance, in that virtually all the teaching staff members were involved in the data collection, and all participants felt that they were contributing to something that was much needed. All staff members agreed that a professional development program in grammar specifically tailored to their needs was of vital importance to them. Therefore, they entered into the study in a spirit of co-operation, cognisant of the fact that their own data collection would inform the professional development program from which they would all benefit. The remainder of this section will illustrate how action research was specifically used in this study.

Burns (2000) shows that action research consists of seven stages (listed in the introductory chapter of this thesis). Burns lists the first stage as the identification of the problem followed by a period of fact-finding (second stage). At this point the research literature can shed light on what can be learned from comparable studies and this would then lead to the formulation of a hypothesis (third stage).

The fourth stage, according to Burns, is gathering further information relevant to the identified problem. This further information can also test the hypothesis. As Burns (2000) suggests, “this ‘testing’ of the hypothesis is not a statistical testing; it is seeing whether the evidence is congruent with the hypothesis” (p. 446). Burns then follows this by a fifth stage – a period of decision-making regarding what kind of action might need to be taken. It may also involve negotiations with senior staff. Implementation of the action plan is the sixth stage in Burns’ seven-stage program. This could see further modifications depending on how well the action plan is implemented. Burns’ seventh and final stage involves interpretation of data and evaluation of the whole project.

This study can be classified as action research, which, in a tertiary context, is not confined to the classroom, but to an educational discourse which could be a course, unit or teaching service. In this investigation, the discourse was an English language teaching centre at an Australian university. Essentially, it was a problem-solving process which defined the scope of this investigation, where teachers were given the opportunity to take part in a study of their own grammar knowledge, to be followed by professional development to redress any deficiencies in that area. This would then lead to more confidence on the part of teachers in the teaching of specific grammar items in the classroom. After one complete cycle, reflection would show whether the professional development needed further refining, so that the end of the cycle could be repeated. It is not envisaged that the entire cycle would be repeated from the beginning. All participants were involved in the data

collection, so they all had a very useful and important role to perform from the very beginning of the study.

In accordance with Burns’ (2000) seven stages of action research, the problem identified at the language centre in the current study was that a proportion of teachers, by their own admission, tended to feel insecure about their grammar knowledge. The period of fact-finding took place when participants were each asked to keep an inventory over a five-week period about which specific grammar items they experienced as difficult when teaching grammar in their classes. The next phase of gathering further information was hypothesis-testing, that is the

administering of a survey including a grammar review, to see whether teachers’ perceptions were borne out by the testing, or whether teachers were merely insecure and / or anxious about their knowledge. This was followed by semi-

structured interviews (four in total). The result would be the progressive devising of a professional development program based on teachers’ inventories and grammar review results. Senior staff members were consulted about the delivery of the professional development program. Teachers would be asked to evaluate each session of the professional development program in order to ascertain whether they were more confident after undertaking professional development sessions, or whether further work needed to be done in this area. It is envisaged that the program would be administered over the course of an entire year. The final stage was interpretation of the data and a final evaluation of the whole project (refer to Figure 3.1 below).

Examples of action research conducted in schools include the following studies: Patarroyo (1998) analyses how a strong linguistic heterogeneity and a large class can affect the everyday development of the learning and teaching processes within a classroom. Maguire (2005) examines the introduction of information technology into a primary school context.

Figure 3.1: Seven stages of action research (adapted from Burns, 2000)

Stage 1 - Problem Identification: teachers’ grammar insecurity / anxiety

Stage 2 - Fact-finding: teachers’ inventory-keeping re difficulties encountered in teaching specific grammar items

Stage 3 - Reference to research literature and formulation of hypothesis: actual grammar items that teachers found difficult to understand and therefore to teach

Stage 4 - Further information: grammar review within survey and semi-structured interviews: confirmation of hypothesis

Stage 5 - Decision-making re action: writing of professional development program

Stage 6 - Implementation of action plan:

delivery of professional development and teachers’ evaluations of the professional development sessions

Possible re-working of professional development program

Stage 7 - Interpretation of data and final evaluation of whole project