Action Research in English Language Teacher Education in a University in Turkey
Tugba Gok, Turkey
Tugba Gok is a level coordinator at Gediz University. She holds an MA in Applied Linguistics and TESOL from the University of Leicester, UK.
E-mail: tugba.gok@gediz.edu.tr
Menu
Abstract
General overview
What is AR?
The emergence of Action Research in English Language Teaching (ELT)
Research setting and participants
The purpose of the study
Data collection procedures
Findings and discussion
References
The purpose of this study is to explore the effects of an in-service teacher education program through action research (AR) which is undertaken at the University of Gediz and learn the views and attitudes of English language teachers participating in this programme towards AR. Another goal of the study is to investigate the contribution of AR to teachers’ professional development. Thus, this teacher education program is expected to help teachers develop their teaching competences and research competences so as to improve their professional competencies. Data was gathered through questionnaires and interviews. The questionnaire was administered to 27 teachers while the interview was held with 12 teachers and 1 mentor. A quantitative approach was used to describe and analyse the questionnaires and the interviews were analysed on the basis of common themes and issues in the participants’ responses. The results of the AR study indicate that most of the English language teachers in the University of Gediz showed positive standpoint towards AR even if there were many barriers in front of them such as lack of time, and lack of enough research skills. With drawbacks and benefits, this study can give ideas to other educational institutions that want to organize a similar AR programme for their language teachers’ professional development.
Traditionally, research correlates with theory while teaching is identified with practice and the gulf between research and teaching has always seemed very large. According to The Oxford Concise Dictionary, research is ‘the systematic investigation into and study of materials, sources, etc, in order to establish facts and reach new conclusions`. On the other hand, Klauer (1985) defines teaching as an ‘interpersonal activity directed toward learning by one or more persons’ (5). Fortunately, time has changed and there are new approaches to this issue. For example, Lawrence Stenhouse (1975) sees research from a different perspective. He encourages teachers to research their own practices. As he said, ‘it is not enough that teachers' work should be studied, they need to study it themselves’ (1975: 144), which is quite a different approach compared to the traditional one. This issue will be discussed in Part 2 in detail.
In the last few decades, it has been seen as essential to link teaching with doing research in educational communities and teachers are believed to be perfectly positioned at the junction between these two domains, teaching and research. So, today the idea of a teacher-as-researcher has achieved great value. The role of the teacher has changed considerably to before, when it was as traditionally defined tightly and clearly as being concerned with teaching. Briefly, a teacher researcher’s role is explained as the following: ‘To be a teacher means to observe students and study classroom interactions, to explore a variety of effective ways of teaching, and to build conceptual frameworks that can guide one’s work…It is the work of teacher researcher`(Burnaford, Fischer and Hobson 2001: 29). The teachers are not just standing back any more and observing their classrooms from a distance; they are in the middle of the students and making changes through research.
One of the most important areas that modern thinking affected is teacher education, and specifically, English language teacher education. Presumably, teacher education is one of the central parts of education. In the last decade, the terms ‘AR` and ‘teacher-as-researcher` have become fashionable. In connection with this, the conceptions of professional development in education have been faced with a dramatic change. Moreover, teacher education is such an important issue that most governments have come to believe that educational development is a requirement for economic growth and that perhaps research can promote development (Bassey 1995). Similar to many other countries, in Turkey, teacher education starts with a 4 year undergraduate degrees and it may not be possible to create a finished teaching product in such a short time. Teachers may acquire a few pedagogical skills and; construct some knowledge of teaching and learning (Johnson 2008). However, no one can claim that teachers have reached their highest potential as teachers within this time. Teacher education has to be extended beyond the limit of four years of pre-service education followed by career-long in-service education.
Besides this, many scholars believe that traditional INSETs are not very effective (Barone et al., 1996). After a long day of teaching, in a limited time, an expert gives general suggestions which are generally not related to the specific context or she/he explains a language teaching approach in general. Similarly, Liberman (1978) opposes the idea of giving courses to teachers which are isolated from their context. He adds that ‘we accept and explore further the fact that development means working with, at best, a portion of a staff over a long period in time with necessary supportive conditions` (69). Across the world, teacher education is once more under the spotlight to find solutions to that problem. AR is regarded as an efficient and effective way to address the professional development of teachers.
There have been an increasing number of in-service teacher education courses adopting ‘AR’ as their guiding principle. It has a significant role in teacher education since it not only promotes teachers to think more seriously about their own teaching but also helps to change their attitude. Small scale investigations and critical reflection are the key concepts of AR (Loftus 1999). According to Wallace (1991), critical reflection comprises both examining teaching experiences and being a tool for change. In this way, teachers are more aware of what aspects of their teaching need to be changed. AR can serve as a basis for reflection and from this basis; teachers can create new strategies depending on their existing problems. In other words, ‘reflection is a process of making sense of one’s experience and telling the story of one’s journey’ (Burnaford, Fischer and Hobson 2001: 8). As Mcdonough (2006) suggests, teacher educators can develop new circumstances for reflection by involving teachers in research. Research can help teachers learn how to seek knowledge. Teachers are more than passive followers of others’ research; rather they are actively involved in their own classroom-based research which is more related to their own students.
In the literature there are different definitions of AR and there is no exact answer to the question of ‘What is AR?’ but put simply, as the name implies, AR is a methodology which has the dual aims of action and research (Burns, 2009). It is generally preferred to be used in situations where someone wishes to make some changes by means of action in addition to what exists already. More formally described, ‘AR is simply a form of self-reflective enquiry undertaken by participants in social situations in order to improve the rationality and justice of their own practices, their understanding of these practices, and the situations in which the practices are carried out’ (Carr and Kemmis, 1986: 162). At this point, it seems that it might be useful to explore some other definitions of AR suggested by different leaders in the field. Jean McNiff (1997), the key person who has written several books on AR, encourages people to use AR to change their lives and the system in which they live. McNiff (1997: 1) claims that:
‘… AR is a powerful method of bridging the gap between theory and practice of education; for her teachers are to develop their own personal theories of education from their own classroom practice…’
Bassey (1998: 93) describes AR as an enquiry which is carried out in order to ‘understand, to evaluate, and then to change, in order to improve educational practice’. Another definition of AR is made by Mills (2003). He sees AR as a practice for systematic professional development as it can be carried out by large organizations or school counsellors assisted or guided by professional researchers, with the aim of improving their strategies, practices, and knowledge of the environments within which they practice. Mills (2003: 5) defined AR as follows:
‘AR is any systematic enquiry conducted by teacher researchers, principals, school counsellors, or any stakeholders in the teaching\learning environment to gather information about how their schools operate, how they teach, and how well their students learn.’
Even though AR has had a long history in general education for around 60 to 70 years, it has recently become popular in the field of English language education. In the early 1980s, Breen and Candlin’s (1980) suggestions for integrating the curriculum evaluation as a part of classroom learning and teaching (Burns et al. 2007: 992) gave way to a rapid change from the traditional to the modern. Instead of being followers of existing methodologies, teachers have become more active participants in their teaching contexts. As Allwright (1988) mentions, the flow of classroom-based research plays an important role in the increasing participation of teachers in ELT. Van Lier (1992) was among the first authors who were pointing to the gap between theory and practice and its negative results which keep the teacher from doing research as follows:
‘Those of us who work in teacher education know that one of the most difficult things to balance in a course is the tension between theoretical and practical aspects of the profession. … Theory and practice are not perceived as integral parts of a teacher’s practical professional life. … This situation is the result of communication gaps caused by an increasingly opaque research technocracy, restrictive practices in educational institutions and bureaucracies (e.g. not validating research time, or not granting sabbaticals to teachers for professional renovation), and overburdening teachers who cannot conceive of ways of theorizing and researching that come out of daily work and facilitate that daily work’ (1992: 3).
In the same vein, Nunan (1989) points to the dilemma of the English language teacher between theory and practice. He believes that until recently, the structure of the language teaching was built on the basis of theory. He advises that the language teachers act as ‘an autonomously functioning individual rather than the servant to someone else’s curriculum’ (xii). In his book, Understanding Language Classrooms (1989), he explains in detail the reasons why he specifically tries to provide guidance to language professionals in research methods.
In light of these ideas, many writers (Brindley 1990; Edge 2001; Freeman 1998; McDonough and McDonough 1997) treat AR as a vehicle for second language teacher education. In the specific literature of AR in the field of English language teaching, Anne Burns, who specialize in action and qualitative research, is seen as a prominent name and she has published a remarkable amount of work on AR. In her books, Burns provides practical ideas for ESL/EFL teachers and teacher educator guidelines for those who are conducting AR about what AR is, how to do it, and why (Hoelker 2000). She constantly emphasises the importance of conducting AR in teacher education. Similarly, Maley (1991) underlines the potential of AR in second language teacher education in the field of English teaching practice:
‘Increasingly both professional and classroom teachers are becoming involved in pragmatically-rooted research at the rock face. Typically these research projects are designed to find answers to quite small-scale, specific problems. When carried out by teachers, they are a prime tool for teacher development.’ (29)
When looking at the ELT world today, language teacher education has attracted increasing attention in recent years and conceptions of professional development in education have been faced with a rapid and dramatic change. Traditionally, in the eyes of some teachers, teacher education means some formal events restricted to very short courses after which they obtain certificates.
John (2004) explains his experience at the University of Canberra; he mentions that there are many advantages that arise for language teachers after introducing the AR that can potentially serve their development as reflective professionals (Burns 2005).The growing number of Action Researchers shows that many teachers prefer to be researchers in addition to their busy classroom lives. Most of the teachers have quite positive feelings, and they are eager to improve their professional practice, and to search out new teaching ideas. Even in some countries (such as India and, Australia) it is recommended as part of educational policy developments for teacher professional development (Burns 2005). As a result of this, as long as the language teachers are motivated to be involved in AR, it seems that language teacher educators will apply to AR more often.
English Preparatory Program of the Gediz University Foreign Languages Department was selected as the site for this study. In order to give a true picture of the process throughout the AR project, it seems essential to give a wider description of the setting. The school has about seven hundred students, most of whom are Turkish. In the department there are around 45 language teachers and six of them are native speakers of English. All the teachers except ten of them took part in the AR project.
The AR project started for the first time in October 2010 with strong support of professional development unit at Gediz University, and this process still continues. Additionally, the coordinator of the department was supportive of and interested in the project. It is basically a local, systematic research-based project.
The purpose of the study was to develop professionalism in English language teaching through AR. It is worth mentioning that the main concern in this study is the teacher-researchers rather than the students. When examining the first steps that were taken towards AR, in the first meetings, the mentor introduced to the teachers what AR is. In the following workshops they raised questions related to AR and discussed them in groups. Here are some discussion examples:
- What do you want to improve in your teaching?
- What kind of data do you plan to collect to give an idea about what is happening?
The Action Researchers met regularly with the mentor and presented their ideas about their work in progress. The mentor guided them in reviewing literature, selecting a methodology and types of data collection procedures, analysing the evidence and presenting the findings. Moreover, teachers shared their ideas with each other either for criticism or advice and collaborated with their colleagues in finding solutions. Throughout this small-scale research project, teachers explored different areas of ELT at the university level (see the topics in Appendix 3). Each teacher presented their AR report to his/her colleagues in a workshop at the end of the academic year. When the research results were revealed, some valuable data emerged.
For the purpose of this study, a total of twenty-seven questionnaires were distributed to the teachers. Among the teachers who filled out the questionnaire, twelve were selected for interviewing. A semi-structured interview was employed in this study; this procedure is supported by Basit (2010).
The main purpose of this study is to investigate the attitudes of teachers towards AR. This study also aims to find out to what degree this AR project meets the needs of the teachers in terms of professional development and to evaluate this program based on the teachers’ perspectives. The researcher acts as an external observer of the project who visits the project environment several times. It is claimed that the AR project at Gediz University might be an example of teacher education using an AR approach which has showed an improvement in the quality of education by increasing teachers’ teaching competence and research competence. To clarify this claim, the following major questions were developed:
- What are the thoughts and feelings of the in-service teachers about taking part in an AR project?
- What did the in-service teachers accomplish through AR in terms of professional development?
Both quantitative and qualitative approaches were used to collect data in this study in order to find answers to the research questions. The combination of these methodologies is generally called as ‘mixed method’. As Cresswell (2003: 18) explains, ‘it involves gathering both numeric information (e.g. on instruments) as well as text information (e.g. on interviews) so that the final database represents both qualitative and quantitative information’. A questionnaire and two kinds of interviews were used as the main data gathering instruments for this study. With the use of two research tools, it was intended to gain further insights into the teachers’ points of views and to clarify the points and concerns raised by the teachers in the questionnaires. The use of various data information opens doors for researchers to ‘validate and crosscheck the findings’ (Patton 1990: 244). Thus, the questionnaire is used for quantitative data and the interviews are used for qualitative data.
As a researcher, I attended some of the AR workshops at the Gediz University in order to build a trustworthy relationship with the participants prior to the questionnaires and interviews. During those workshops, I had the opportunity to observe the continuing AR project, which helped me a lot when formulating the interviews and questionnaires. The interview questions and the questionnaire questions were reviewed for accuracy and content by the dissertation supervisor. Moreover, a pilot questionnaire was carried out among some of the MA students in my department to guarantee its clarity and applicability. As a result of this, except for some minor changes, the questionnaires and interviews were found to be clear enough.
The AR approach was introduced to English language teachers by means of one academic year project by the mentor in the University of Gediz. For this study, the teachers who engaged in this project were both interviewed and asked to fill out a questionnaire at the end of the academic year about their AR experience. It is highlighted from the questionnaires and interviews that most of them gather around the idea that AR studies have much contributed to their professional development in many ways. Firstly, this project allowed them to investigate some problematic areas that are related to where they work and to whom they teach. This result is in the line with the purposes of AR mentioned in the Chapter 2. As Reason and Bradbury (2006) suggested, AR is an effective way to find practical solutions to everyday problems in classrooms.
In the AR literature, Carr and Kemmis (1986) see AR as a linking tool between theory and practice and it helps to change teachers’ understanding of their practices. One of the main aims of this study was to find out whether AR has contributed to their professional developments or not. The interview results concerning professional development are in the same line with the findings of questionnaire. Many of the teachers said that they learned a lot from the work of others. Many reported that the benefits of AR on their professional development had motivated them to carry out the other steps of AR in the following years.
As it is mentioned earlier, teacher-research is highly advocated in the literature by some authors such as Burns (2010) and McNiff (2010). In the same way, many teachers reported that they took advantage of being a teacher-researcher since they believed that they gained a deeper and more profound understanding of how to carry out AR and increased confidence in ability to do research. Moreover, they believe that they play an active role in their professional development by doing AR.
On the other hand, as doing research was a new experience for most of the teachers, some viewed the idea of being a teacher-researcher as a problematical matter. Those who were in a dilemma between teaching and doing research in their AR project gave me the following reasons: Lack of time and work overload. These results also parallel with the ideas of Burns (2010) who indicates that AR can be a burden on teachers’ shoulders in terms of time and additional work load and lack of confidence to carry out research. As it is mentioned in the literature review, lack of research expertise is the main criticism directed towards AR. Roulston (2005) criticises teacher- researchers as being inadequate of doing research; his claim has come true in some ways in this research. The involvement of teachers in research was challenging at the beginning as they were not familiar enough with the methodology of research before this project. However, it seems to be achieved through the support of the mentor and cooperation between teachers. In order to achieve an everlasting success, the teachers should be able to handle the methodological problems themselves even after the support of the mentor is removed.
Respondents suggested that the support of the mentor has a big role while conducting AR project as a part of their professional development. In the light of the teachers’ responses, it seems that this AR project has met the need for co-operation between the teachers and the mentor. Both the interview and the questionnaire results display that the mentor supervised the teachers in every stages of AR and it seems that this application has made a considerable contribution to both personal and institutional professional development.
As it is indicated in some of the interviews and questionnaires, nearly all of the teachers are planning to continue their research in the following years so as to see the change more clearly in their practices. It seems that the teachers followed the eleven steps proposed by Burns (1999, 40) and some of them are still in the middle of the process. Although some other teachers see this situation as a failure, it does not seem so because the teachers doing AR state that they are willing to continue with the other steps of AR in the following years. As a recommendation for the following years, teachers should be given more opportunity to implement what they have learned from the data they collected and to reflect the results to their teaching practices.
The reflection of the views and attitudes of teachers puts forward that AR is beneficial for in-service teachers’ professional development, as the predominant followers of AR (Hensen 1996; Burns 2005; Maley 1991) have claimed. It also meets the expectations of the mentor and the head of the department since their aim was to create an environment where the ELT teachers can improve their professional competencies.
Even though some of the teachers have not concluded their research, they presented their studies to the other teachers at an institutional workshop. In addition to this, some of the teachers presented their topic at both national and international ELT conferences. Furthermore, some of the teachers have sent their proposals to international journals.
Finally, Burns (2005) complains that ‘much of the AR conducted by teachers stay unpublished or is disseminated, often verbally, only to a localised audience` (57). In this respect, this study is believed to contribute to the AR literature greatly because it reveals teachers’ attitude towards action research and it displays an example to other universities which aim to educate in-service teachers.
Allwright, D. (2005). Developing principles for practitioner research: The case of exploratory practice. Modern Language Journal, 89, 353–366.
Barone, T. D., et al. "A Future for Teacher Education: Developing a Strong Sense of Professionalism." Handbook of Research in Teacher Education, 2nd ed. Ed. J. Silula. New York: Mac Millan, 1996. 1108-1149.
Basit TN (2010) Conducting Research in Educational Contexts. London: Continuum. (ISBN: 978-0-8264-8689-9)
Bassey, M. (1995) Creating Education through Research: a global perspective of educational research for the 21st Century, Newark, Kirklington Moor Press, in association with the British Educational Research Association.
Bassey M. (1998) Action Research for Improving Educational Practice, in Halsall R. (ed), Teacher Research and School Improvement, Milton Keynes: Open University Press.
Brindley, G. (1990). Towards a research agenda for TESOL. Prospect: An Australian Journal of TESOL, 6(1), 7–26.
Burnaford, G., Fischer, J., & Hobson, D. (Eds.). (2001). Teachers doing research: The power of action through inquiry (2nd ed.). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Burns, A. (1999). Collaborative action research for English language teachers. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Burns, A. (2005). Teaching English from a global perspective. Case studies in TESOL series. Alexandria: TESOL
Burns, A. (2007). Action research in ELT: Contributions and future directions. In J. Cummins & C. Davison (Eds.), The International Handbook of English Language Teaching. Volume 2. Norwell, Ma: Springer Publications.
Burns, A. (2009). Action research in second language teacher education. In A. Burns and J.C. Richards (Eds.), The Cambridge guide to second language teacher education (pp. 289-297). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Burns, A. (2010). Doing action research in English language teaching: A guide for practitioners. New York: Routledge.
Carr, W., & Kemmis, S. (1986). Becoming critical: Education, knowledge and action research. London, England: The Falmer Press.
Creswell, J. (2003). Research Design: Qualitative, Quantitative, and Mixed Methods Approaches. Thousand Oaks, California: Sage Publications.
Edge, J. (Ed.). (2001). Action research. Alexandria, VA: TESOL.
Freeman, Donald. (1998). Doing teacher research: From Inquiry to Understanding. Heinle & Heinle Publishers.
Hensen, K. T. (1996). Teachers as researchers. In J. Sikula (Ed.), Handbook of research on teacher education (4th ed., pp. 53-66). New York: Macmillan.
Hoelker, J. (2000). [Review of the book] Collaborative Action Research for English Language Teachers. Korea TESOL Journal 3, 89-93
Johnson, A.P. (2008). A short guide to action research (3rd ed.). Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
Klauer, KJ. (1985). Framework for a theory ofteaching. Teaching and Teacher Education, 1, 5-17.
Lieberman, A. (Ed.). (1988). Building a professional culture in schools. New York: New York Teachers College.
Loftus, J. (1999). An action research enquiry into the marketing of an established first school in its transition to full primary status. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Kingston, England.
Maley, A (2001) ‘Literature in the language classroom' in The Cambridge Guide to Teaching ESOL, Cambridge University Press.
McDonough, J. and McDonough, S. (1997), Research methods for English language teachers, London: Arnold.
McNiff, J. (1997) Action Research for Professional Development: Concise Advice for New (and Experienced) Action Researchers. Dorset: September.
Mills, G. E. (2003). Action research: A guide for the teacher researcher. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Merrill/Prentice Hall.
Nunan, D. (1989). Understanding language classrooms: A guide for teacher-initiated action. New York, NY: Prentice Hall
Patton, M. Q. (1990). Qualitative Evaluation and Research Methods (2nd ed.). Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications, Inc.
Roulston, K., Legette, R., DeLoach, M., & Pittman, C. (2005). What is “research” for teacher-researchers? Educational Action Research, 13(2), 169-189.
Reason, P., & Bradbury, H. (2000). Handbook of action research: Participative inquiry and practice. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc.
Stenhouse, L. (1975) An Introduction to Curriculum Research and Development. London, Heinemann.
Van Lier, L. (1992). Not the nine o’clock linguistics class: Investigating contingency grammar. Language Awareness, 1, 91-108.
Wallace, M. J. (1991). Training foreign language teachers: a reflective approach. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Please check the How to be a Teacher Trainer course at Pilgrims website.
|
