Collaborative action research

In the case of the present study, I adopted a collaborative action research approach and particular attention was paid to how collaboration was defined and exercised along with the common principles and procedures of action research. Developing the basic action research design, Tikunoff and Ward (1983, p. 453) carried out their collaborative research in 1976 and named it “interactive research and development,” whereby the concerns of their research were with “resolving the concerns of classroom teachers.” They were interested in a collaborative approach to research due to the shortcomings of contemporary approaches to research design that were inadequate to inform classroom theory and practice that could lead to the improvement of classroom instruction. They define

‘collaborative’ as an approach that sees the teacher as an active contributor to research rather than a passive consumer of a research, where teachers and other educational stakeholders should be involved in the various stages of an inquiry process. Similarly, Gordon (2008) defines collaborative action research as a term used to describe a researcher conducting action research school-wide with a small group of teachers or with individual teachers as is the case in the present study.

94

Several advantages of doing collaborative action research have been identified by researchers. For example, Burns (2003) notes that collaborative action research allows teachers to share their problems or concerns and be members of the wider research community for which the findings and procedures of this collaboration could make a valuable contribution to academic and professional understanding of key issues. Burns adds that “collaborative action research is a stimulating direction for curriculum change and professional development...it integrates productively into second language curriculum and professional development programmes for many teachers” (2003, p. 53). Likewise, McNiff and Whitehead (2006, p. 136) emphasise that in collaborative action research, it is possible for a researcher to get all those involved in the research project to monitor and reflect on what they are doing with an aim of encouraging the co-construction of understanding within a particular situation or setting of a study.

According to Gordon (2008), in educational settings, collaborative action research

“…can empower teachers, transform school cultures, and most importantly, dramatically improve student learning” (p. 1). This aspect of action research is particularly applicable to my research. It is useful in investigating, developing, and implementing the relevant tasks to promote formative writing processes in this specific ESL writing classroom context since “…collaborative action research processes strengthen the opportunities for the results of research on practice to be fed back into educational systems in a more substantial and critical way” (Burns, 2003, p. 13). Warrican (2006, p. 1) explains that “…a key ingredient in effecting change is the active involvement of the ‘clients’ themselves – in this case, teachers and students - in the change process” (p. 1). Similarly, Craig (2009) suggests that “…action research promotes collaboration and encourages

95

‘community’ among all parties involved in a specific learning situation, leading to results that have the potential to improve conditions and situations for all members of the learning community” (p. 7). However, Camarinha-Matos and Afsarmanesh (2007) emphasise that:

… the success of any collaborative project depends, to a large extent, on the effectiveness of the coordination principles and the established operational mechanisms for monitoring and assessment. (p. 65)

In the present study, the operational mechanisms mentioned above are discussed in Section 3.4.2. There is no set standard or procedure for conducting collaborative action research or for how collaborative action research should be designed. Depending on the aim of the research and how the roles of researchers and participants are perceived in a particular research study, the definition and procedures for any collaborative action research may differ from one researcher to another. Therefore, in the present project, I carefully designed the writing tasks and their procedures as an intervention informed by the data collected in the first phase of my project. The writing tasks developed for the intervention are related to the process writing activities of brainstorming activity, selecting and organizing ideas; essay outline, and the peer-review activity (see Section 2.3.2.1). These tasks and procedures for going about them were then introduced and shared with the teachers to be implemented in Phase 2 of the action research project. The intervention was carried out by the two collaborating teachers in a context-sensitive manner. In the first cycle, I formatively observed, monitored and collaboratively evaluated the pedagogical intervention with the two ESL teacher participants. Both the ESL teachers and I had discussions after each lesson to reflect and refine the pedagogical intervention. The teachers then used the

96

improved version in the second cycle of the action research project. Overtime through discussion and sharing, trust between myself and the teachers emerged and strengthened. I began with my design but collaboration soon followed.

In summary, promoting changes to improve the teaching and learning of writing in an ESL context was the overall aim of my research, which involved understanding the current practices of teaching and assessing writing, identifying the advantages and limitations of the current assessment practices, and observing the changes and challenges as a result of the implementation process. Thus collaborative action research was chosen for my study as I was confident that such an approach would encourage the sharing of problems and ideas between the collaborating researcher and teachers.