Defining Action Research

A starting point in defining action research would be to say that it is ‗an approach that involves both action and research‘ (Burns, 2009: 114). Burns argues that the action component is ‗usually associated with identifying and exploring an issue, question, dilemma, gap, or puzzle in your own context of work‘ (ibid.), whereas the ‗research in action research involves a systematic approach to collecting information, or data, usually using methods commonly associated with qualitative research‘ (ibid. 115). Focusing on both action and research, the main stages in action research are usually described ‗as a self-reflective action research cycle of planning, action,

observation, and reflection‘ (Bold in original, ibid.) where action researchers

identify a ‗focus area‘, ‗plan strategies to change or improve the situation‘, ‗collect information systematically about this focus area‘, ‗analyze and reflect‘ on the data, and ‗act as necessary again to change or improve the situation‘ (ibid.).

In addition to ‗the simultaneous focus on action and research' (Burns, 2005: 58), a very important defining characteristic of action research is that it is conducted by

105

teachers or practitioners rather than outside researchers. Kemmis and McTaggart point out that action research is ‗undertaken by participants in social situations‘ (1988: 1). It is ‗a form of practitioner research‘ (Borg, 2010: 394). In the field of education, it can be more specifically identified as a form of teacher research as ‗action research is conducted by or in cooperation with teachers‘ (Dörnyei, 2007: 191) and Borg argues that ‗action research (when conducted by teachers) is also teacher research‘ (2010: 393). Teacher research is defined as ‗inquiry conducted by teachers in their own professional contexts‘ (Borg, 2010: 393). However, ‗not all teacher research follows the procedures which define action research‘ (ibid.). Teacher research is ‗a broader term than action research‘ (ibid.) and ‗refers to the agents who conduct the study‘ (Bailey, 2001: 491), whereas action research ‗denotes a particular approach‘ (ibid.). Seeing action research (conducted by teachers) as a form of teacher research emphasizes the role of the teacher as a researcher rather than the one who is being researched (the object of research). Edge and Richards claim that action research brings with it ‗new attempts to make space for the actual voices of those who have previously been merely represented‘ (1998: 341) because in action research, ‗a teacher becomes an 'investigator' or 'explorer' of his or her personal teaching context, while at the same time being one of the participants in it‘ (Burns, 2010: 2). Giving the ownership of research to the teacher, teacher research including action research ‗aims to close the gap between the researcher and the researched upon‘ (McIntosh, 2010: 33).

Another important characteristic of action research is its reflective nature. Kemmis and McTaggart define action research as ‗self-reflective enquiry undertaken by

106

participants in social situations‘ (1988: 1). It is ‗related to the ideas of ‗reflective practice‘‘ (Burns, 2010a: 2). Therefore, reflection is a key word here. Mann argues that:

there is a continuum between, at one end, what Wallace (1991: 56) calls ‗normal reflective practice of many teachers‘ or what ‗caring teachers have always done‘ (Bailey 1997: 1) and, at the other end, the more structured and rigorous forms teacher research which include action research. The shorthand for this continuum would be reflection and research (Emphasis added, 2005: 108).

Reflection, whether intuitive or structured, requires teachers to have three characteristics: ‗Open mindedness (willingness to listen to more than one side),

Responsibility (careful consideration of the consequences of our action) [and]

Wholeheartedness (commitment to seek every opportunity to learn)‘ (Farrell, 2004: 14). Reflection is a key element in action research. Kemmis and McTaggart (1988) present their action research model and identify reflection as a stage in the on-going cycles of planning, action, observation and reflection (see figure 4-1). Rather than perceiving reflection as only a stage, there are some other authors who view reflection and action research as interrelated. McIntosh, for example, argues that ‗there is no doubting the overlapping qualities that are required to engage in effective reflection and action research. They can coexist alongside each other and

simultaneously be embedded within each other as they are employed in daily working practices‘ (Emphasis added, 2010: 52). Similarly, Burns argues that

reflection in action research is ‗much more dynamic than simply being the last phase in the cycle‘ (2010a: 141). It ‗happens right from the beginning‘ (ibid.). Reflection for action researchers ‗flavours and moulds the whole AR experience‘ (ibid.). In this research, reflection is perceived as dynamic and interrelated with the action research processes as they happen in the daily teaching practices.

107

Figure 4-1 (Kemmis and McTaggart, 1988)

What distinguishes action research from other types of teacher research that are reflective in nature (e.g. exploratory practice; see Allwright, 2003) is its inherently interventionist nature. Richards argues that action research ‗represents a move from a descriptive/interpretive stance to an interventionist position‘ (2003: 24). To Burns, 'intervention through action occurs in response to a perceived problem, puzzle or question – a gap between the ideal and the reality that people in the social context perceive as in need of change' (2005: 58). The intervention is, therefore, meant for change and improvement in practice or as Richards put it, it aims to ‗understand better some aspect of professional practice as a means of bringing about improvement‘ (2003: 24). According to Noffke and Somekh, 'action research frequently does not start with a research question. The driving force will be an impetus for change/innovation' (2005: 91). In order to achieve that, Baumfield et al. argue that action researchers usually adopt a ‗what happens if?‘ approach which

108

indicates that they ‗are planning to make a change or series of changes and to measure their impact‘ (2008: 63-4). In a 'what happens if?' approach, measures can be tests or observations depending on the issues under investigation. Baumfield et al. claim that 'performative data are the observable behaviours which pupils (or indeed anyone else) exhibit in reaction to a change in normal practice' (2008: 39). However, these behaviours may not be a result of the change. That is why 'it is often better to also ask the pupils about the context surrounding these behaviours and why they might have happened (either a questionnaire or an interview)' (ibid.). In the case of this research, the intervention was done through integrating supplementary internet materials with the aim of addressing EFL learners‘ interests in the context. The appropriateness and effectiveness of this change were investigated through collecting performative data with a particular focus on participants‘ reactions to this change.

Defining action research also necessitates looking at its emergence from both historical and paradigmatic perspectives. From a historical perspective, the social psychologist, Kurt Lewin, 'is widely accredited with being the 'father' of action research' (Burns, 2005: 57) who saw action research as a 'spiral of steps', 'each of which is composed of a circle of planning, action and fact-finding about the result of the action' (Lewin, 1948: 206 as cited in Burns, 2005: 58). Although calls for research to combine theory and practice have been prominent since early twentieth century, action research in the field of English language teaching (ELT) has only 'emerged in the literature predominantly since the late 1980s' (Italics in original, Burns, 2005: 57). From a paradigmatic perspective,

109

Action research as an approach to human inquiry has emerged from, and exists as an approach whilst living within, a culture that is heavily weighted towards a technical or positivist paradigm with regard to practice and governance (McIntosh, 2010: 33).

Action research has found itself a place within the emerging constructivist paradigm that has given rise to qualitative research approaches. Action research is perceived as part of the movement towards qualitative research ‗that impacted on the social sciences in the latter half of the 20th century and emerged in reaction to scientific, experimental and quantitative paradigms‘ (Burns, 2005: 57). A very important characteristic of the qualitative approach is its emergent nature. An 'important aspect of this emergent nature is the fact that, ideally, qualitative researchers enter the research process with a completely open mind and without setting out to test preconceived hypotheses' (Dörnyei, 2007: 37). Their understandings will only develop in the field as in being co-constructed with other participants in social settings. This is consistent with the action research evolving processes (Burns, 2010a) that represent an on-going attempt to improve the quality of action based on emerging themes in practice rather than preconceived hypotheses.

In the following sub-section, I talk about the approaches taken to action research and identify the approach I adopted in this research.