Exploratory Practice

The principle of ‘thinking globally, acting locally’, advocated by Allwright (2003) in the introduction to the special issue of Language Teaching Research that focused on Exploratory Practice, ties in closely with Narrative Inquiry’s distinction between ‘small stories’ and ‘big stories’. Allwright and Hanks (2009) actively encourage the ‘harnessing’ of narrative inquiry

as a way to encourage reflection, particularly when refining puzzles for inquiry. In addition, the ideas from ethnography concerning the interrelated dynamics of local/global perspectives connect closely with this view. Furthermore, the multi-level analytical approach of autoethnography and its focus on empowerment creates a clear link between ethnographic approaches and the central principles that give structure to Exploratory Practice (EP), an approach that was originally a reaction to the ‘received wisdom’ that had

informed much of practitioner research. These reactions are often phrased as principles, which are;

1. a concern for the improvement of ‘quality of lifein the language classroom’ over ‘instructional efficiency’ (Allwright, 2003).

2. a view to developing understandings rather than improving our teaching

3. the belief that teaching and researching should be social and therefore benefit learners and teachers as well as those who are interested in research. In other words

it should ‘involve everybody’, as opposed to research which is generally concerned

with ‘cause and effect relationships’. (Allwright, 2003, p. 114)

Although many of the academic origins for EP were put forward in the final seven pages of Allwright and Bailey (1991), the practical origins arose from Allwright’s work in Rio de Janeiro in the early nineties, which Allwright notes, made his initial aims at making teaching more

efficient seem like ‘an embarrassment’ (2003, p. 117). Allwright notes a dissatisfaction with

what he labels a ‘technicist’ description of EP, itself ironic given that EP was developed

initially as a set of ethical guidelines against such technicist approaches to practitioner research (Allwright, 2005). As a reaction to the initial eight steps of EP (Allwright, 1993), a

reformulated list of ‘global principles’ was developed and this attempted to shed the

technicist agenda that made EP into a method, and rather help it to maintain its position as a set of ethical principles that inform practitioner research and make it practical, as something that integrates with the actual practices of teaching in a sustainable way. Thus, EP is about practitioners working toward understanding and professional development rather than change.

EP was developed collaboratively through academic writing and practical experience. Although fundamentally it is also an ongoing work in progress and personal experimentation

is always encouraged, Allwright formulated a ‘principled description’ of EP which features

1. put ‘quality of life’ first

2. work primarily to understand language classroom life 3. involve everybody

4. work to bring people together 5. work also for mutual development

6. integrate the work for understanding into classroom practice 7. make the work a continuous enterprise

(Allwright, 2003, pp. 128-131) Later, additional emphasis was also given to the learners themselves as agents in the process of EP. Allwright and Hanks developed five propositions about learners, that they are; (1) unique individuals and (2) social beings who are (3) capable of taking learning seriously and (4) independent decision making, (5) capable as developing as practitioners of learning. However, the lists which try to pin EP down serve merely as markers, in that they show where the ideas have come from and where they are headed, but fail to ultimately provide a description of EP as a method. Indeed, such a description would not be in keeping with the philosophy of practice around which EP was collaboratively built. In my own personal experience, the only way to really understand EP is to try to have a go at doing it.

In any case, my own reading of EP has led me firmly to the conclusion that this is perhaps one of the most promising avenues for teachers to explore in terms of understanding complex dynamic processes in their classrooms such as motivation. This is further supported by a recent paper by (Ushioda, 2016), which presents a research agenda not at all unlike the one I have used throughout this inquiry. This is, of course, not a coincidence but merely further evidence of the collaborative nature of this inquiry. In addition, although the discussion of motivation is short, it is framed as a centrally important aspect of EP and directly linked with proposition two; that learners are social beings. Furthermore, EP more broadly connects motivation with the ‘quality of classroom life’ (Allwright & Hanks, 2009, pp. 88-89). Such ethical considerations are echoed in Kumaravadivelu’s (2012) comments on motivation, which he later connects strongly with the concept of authenticity, in the development of his modular approach to language teacher education. Furthermore, all of

these approaches support Ushioda’s persons-in-context relational view of motivation (Ushioda, 2009, 2011b), which has always been the starting place for my conceptualisation of motivation and part of my philosophy of practice.

Exploratory Practice as a framework for research is, in many ways, a development which takes action research as its point of departure. However, action research is still classed by Allwright and Hanks (2009) as third-party research and they see it as still being unsatisfactory in terms of how well it is able to integrate itself as a form of research within the practice of actual teaching. Ellis explains the differences between the two methods:

One is the starting point - a 'problem' or, perhaps, a 'task' in the case of action research and a 'puzzle' in the case of exploratory research3_{. Another difference lies in the}

methodology of the two approaches. Action research employs similar methods of data collection to those found in formal research and involves going beyond the materials used for teaching; exploratory research embeds data collection into the actual practice of teaching. What they have in common is an emphasis on the continuous nature of the inquiry. Action research is 'cyclical' (although to what extent this is actually achieved by many teachers is doubtful); exploratory research is a long-term enterprise and, because it is part of teaching is potentially more sustainable. (R. Ellis, 2012, p. 31)

This inquiry was originally envisaged as Exploratory Practice because this way I did not have to view the relationship of the teacher/researcher as a problem or get tangled up with the

‘observer’s paradox’ by having to employ formal data collection tools other than those used

for teaching. From this research tradition I am able to make it clear that I do intend my participants to have a full understanding of my role as teacher/researcher and to know that I am trying to observe the effect of my interaction with them and gain a better understanding of the consequences of my actions in the classroom situation.

Another pertinent reason for basing this inquiry within the framework of Exploratory Practice is the fact that data should come from pedagogic sources, and the data should serve a pedagogic purpose in its own right (Allwright, 2003, 2006a; Allwright & Hanks, 2009). This is done by recognising potentially exploitable pedagogic activities (PEPAs), which usually requires a more reflective and analytical approach to the ordinary work produced in class (Allwright & Hanks, 2009; Hanks, 2015b). Whereas action research neglects ‘the agency of

learners as potential researchers’ (Allwright & Hanks, 2009, p. 108 original emphasis), Exploratory Practice is also seen ‘a less daunting proposition than [action] research’ (Mann,

3 _{Ellis is using the term exploratory research to refer to Exploratory Practice here. The terms can be}

confusing, which is why in this thesis I use the term Exploratory Practice to avoid ambiguity and differentiate between exploratory research, which could refer to unfinished research or research which is exploratory in nature.

2005, p. 108) because it is based more on the activities which take place in the classroom without intervention. This way the research sits alongside the actual teaching, and as a result the two aims (teaching and researching) are more closely entwined under the broader concept of learning. This appealed to me because this method of data collection would seem to be very authentic in itself. With authenticity being at the centre of this research, such an approach seemed a perfect and familiar fit, even though I had never embarked on a research project of this kind before.

One possible shortfall of this inquiry in terms of its being Exploratory Practice was, however, the way I saw the learners as potential researchers. This is a consequence of the hybrid nature of the study as it utilises autoethnography and reflective practice in order to gain a deeper understanding of my developing professional identity. As I found the reflective-data and journals taking prominence in the study, I consciously or unconsciously chose not to invite the participants to make their own puzzles and thus I retained the monopoly as the researcher. I did often invite the learners to reflect and to look at issues such as their understanding of authenticity, as well as their own fluctuating motivation, but I did not encourage them to look beyond the central themes that I was examining. The main way I explored the learners’ own agency as researchers was in the forms of self-assessment and reflective essays, both of which are strongly advocated as tools for developing ‘practitioners

of learning’ (Allwright & Hanks, 2009). As such, I do believe that this study was successful in

‘involving all the participants’ and improving the ‘quality of classroom life’ (Allwright, 2003, 2005; Allwright & Hanks, 2009) in the true sense of Exploratory Practice. However, it is

important to admit that I feel I did not fully explore the learners’ agency as researchers in

terms of them selecting their own areas to focus on, or encouraging them to develop their own puzzles. Exploratory Practice is resistant to prescriptive and dogmatic instructions of method, and is self-referentially called a ‘work in progress’.

EP is still and must always remain in the process of development, as we learn from the different circumstances in which the framework is invoked. (Allwright, 2003, p. 137)

I feel my having neglected my ‘learners’ agency as researchers’ is an important admission, and part of my own development as a teacher. Since completing this inquiry I have made an effort to attempt Exploratory Practice as it was originally envisioned and ask learners to create their own puzzles, present research in areas that they choose to learn about themselves and to take more agency in their own learning. However, the student/participants in this study did benefit from many techniques in my teaching that

aimed at increasing their own agency, such as the self-assessments for class participation (see section 4.6), the many reaction papers and reflexive exercises we conducted together, and overall they were made very much aware of my ongoing PhD research and often expressed an interest in my own research. So, perhaps it is not accurate to say that I neglected their agency as potential researchers, but rather I kept the focus for this research on the theme of authenticity and motivation, and often asked the students to reflect on their own motivation rather than looking at other areas of learning that they might have been interested in.

Although it does not strictly conform to all of the principles of Exploratory Practice, much of the central justification and data collection tools are based in this type of research, and there are several other studies which have been published as EP that do not invite participants to engage in the act of making their own puzzles. For example, Zhang (2004) used EP to restructure an intensive reading class in China which worked towards improving the quality of classroom life and attempted to involve everybody, although ‘not trying to solve problems directly’ (p. 335). Later students were invited to engage in discussing their own puzzles, but

these were in no way formalised in the reported study as they were in, for example Hanks (2015a). Similarly, Z. Wu (2006) conducted a fascinating study which applied ethnography

to a ‘teacher-initiated research project’ (p. 331) which presented a narrative of teacher

education and discusses the issue of philosophy and teacher research. This study focuses on the lives of teachers themselves, and several links are made with EP and the concept of authenticity, drawing particularly on existential thought and blending this with Eastern thought such as Taoism. In applying their philosophies and sharing stories, the teachers in

Wu’s report were able to make a connection between their ‘understanding in being’ and

their work as language teachers.

The language renames the students from the inside into a category of life instead of standards, and opens their heart of learning which was once covered by the technical criteria of educational values. (Z. Wu, 2006, p. 347)

This seems to connect the idea of ‘teacher as person’ (Glatthorn, 1975) with the learner as a person-in-context (Ushioda, 2009, 2011b), which are essentially guiding principles that informed the design of this inquiry.