Content uploaded by Anne Burns
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Anne Burns on Mar 05, 2022
Content may be subject to copyright.
Action Research in English Language
Teaching: Contributions and Recent
Developments
54
Anne Burns
Contents
Introduction ..................................................................................... 992
What Is Action Research? .. . ................................................................... 992
Historical and Philosophical Evolution of Action Research ................................... 996
The Development of Action Research in ELT . . . .............................................. 998
Action Research Within ELT Research . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 998
Impact of Action Research on Teachers ....................................................... 1000
Recent Initiatives . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1002
Conclusion .. .................................................................................... 1003
Cross-References . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1003
References .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . 1003
Abstract
Action research, as part of a more general movement toward “teacher research,”
has become increasingly prevalent in the field of English language teaching (ELT)
over the last two decades. It can be considered as a form of professional learning
for language teachers which takes a socioconstructivist approach in which teachers
are seen as agentive actors within their own social contexts. After providing an
account of the conceptual features of action research and a brief overview of its
origins, this chapter considers how it relates to other forms of research in ELT.
It outlines the development of action research within the field of English language
teaching. It then considers what various studies have shown about the impact
of conducting action research on teachers. The chapter also considers some of the
more recent initiatives that have contributed to the spread of this form of research
in the field of English language teaching.
A. Burns (*)
School of Education, University of New South Wales, Sydney, NSW, Australia
e-mail: anne.burns@unsw.edu.au
© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019
X. Gao (ed.), Second Handbook of English Language Teaching, Springer International
Handbooks of Education, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-02899-2_52
991
Keywords
Action research · Teacher research · Language teaching · Professional
development · Teacher education
Introduction
Although the concept of action research extends to many fields, such as health care
(Koshy et al. 2011), business and management (Coghlan and Shani 2016), organi-
zational and human development (Maurer and Githens 2010), and social work
(Winter and Munn-Giddings 2001), the focus in this chapter is on educational action
research and more specifically on action research in English language teaching.
In the field of English language education, action research is sometimes seen as part
of a more general movement toward teacher research, where a variety of different
approaches and terminology may be found. Borg (2013), for example, lists the
following: action research, practitioner research, collaborative inquiry, critical
inquiry, self-study, and teacher research. To these could be added exploratory
practice (Allwright and Hanks 2009), reflective practice (Farrell 2018), and explor-
atory action research (Smith et al. 2014). While each of these adopts somewhat
different underlying philosophies, processes, and concepts, they are unified by the
central idea of teachers reflecting on their practices and doing research in their own
classrooms, teaching contexts, and educational settings.
What Is Action Research?
As the term implies, action research simultaneously incorporates and integrates both
action and research. The action component requires some kind of planned interven-
tion, which deliberately puts into place particular strategies, processes, or activities
in the research context. Interventions are introduced in response to a perceived issue,
puzzle, dilemma, or question that people in the immediate social context wish to
understand, improve, change, or mediate in some way in order to create a more
positive educational outcome. The issues explored through the intervention might
relate to teaching, learning, curriculum/syllabus implementation, or assessment,
but aspects of school management or administration are also a potential focus for
action research investigations. Areas for action cover a wide range of possibilities,
including classroom management, materials or technology, particular language skills
(e.g., reading), student behavior, or motivation (cf Wallace 1998, p. 19). From their
analysis of 100 classroom studies, Dana and Yendol-Hoppey (2008, pp. 15–48)
identified eight areas the teachers they consulted were “passionate”about:
1. Helping an individual child
2. Improving and enriching curriculum
3. Developing content knowledge
992 A. Burns
4. Improving or experimenting with teaching strategies and techniques
5. Exploring the relationship between beliefs and classroom practice
6. Exploring the intersection of personal and professional identities
7. Advocating social justice
8. Understanding the teaching and learning context
Action may be undertaken individually, by partners, in groups, or across wider
institutional or organizational clusters. Working collectively has the obvious advan-
tage of being able to collaborate with others at different stages to share and discuss
ideas or findings, plan new actions, talk through various data collection methods,
compare results, and establish communities of practice (see Burns 1999).
The research aspect of action research involves systematically collecting
data about the progress or applicability of the actions, analyzing what they reveal,
reflecting on the implications of the data, and, as relevant, developing alternative
plans or actions based on reflection and analysis. Table 1outlines the various focuses,
purposes, and outcomes in different approaches to action research.
Table 1 Focus and purpose of different approaches to action research
Individual Collaborative Institutional Organizational
Focus Single classroom Multi-classroom Whole department or
school
Whole district
or organization
Purpose Investigate
personal
classroom issues
Investigate
complementary
or common
classroom issues
Investigate common
school-wide issues
Investigate
organizational
issues, factors,
structures
Type of
support
needed
Colleague/mentor
Assistance with
data collection,
organization, or
analysis
Substitute
teachers
Release time
Administrative
support
Institutional
involvement and
commitment
Effective in-school
communication
Administrative
leadership
Organizational
involvement
and
commitment
Effective cross-
organizational
communication
Cross-district
partnerships
Potential
outcomes
Changes in
practice
Continuing
personal
reflection on
teaching
Improvements in
curriculum or
syllabus design
and
implementation
Greater
collaboration in
professional
development
Evaluation of school
restructure/change
Curriculum/program
evaluation
School policy
re-evaluation
Improved
allocation of
resources
Educational
policy
evaluation
Improved
knowledge of
new curriculum
implementation
Improved cross-
district
professional
development
opportunities
54 Action Research in English Language Teaching: Contributions and... 993
The action research process is less predictable than in more “traditional”quanti-
tative or qualitative approaches, as the direction and purpose of the investigation
may change dramatically as it is carried out. Action research is characterized by
a spiral of cycles that minimally involve planning, acting, observing, and reflecting,
although like other forms of research, the reality of the experience is likely to be
much “messier”than this sequence suggests (see Burns 2010). Perhaps the best
known model of educational action research is the one proposed by Kemmis and
McTaggart (1988a). They refer to four “moments”that evolve in a self-reflective
spiral or loop that is reiterated several times according to the scope and direction of
the research:
•Plan –prospective to action, forward looking, and critically informed in terms of
(a) the recognition of real constraints and (b) the potential for more effective
action
•Action –deliberate and controlled, but critically informed in that it recognizes
practice as ideas in action mediated by the material, social, and political “strug-
gle”toward improvement
•Observation –responsive, but also forward looking in that it documents the
critically informed action, its effects, and its context of situation, using “open-
eyed”and “open-minded”observation plans, categories, and measurements
•Reflection –evaluative and descriptive, in that it makes sense of the processes,
problems, issues, and constraints of action and develops perspectives and com-
prehension of the issues and circumstances in which it arises (Based on Kemmis
and McTaggart 1988a, pp. 11–14)
The concepts of improvement and involvement are twin pillars that underpin
action research. The critically informed, improvement-oriented components of this
model take participants much further than they would normally go in daily teaching
in reflecting on the effects and implications of their actions. McPherson (1997)
provides a good example of how the focus and purpose of action research might
change as a researcher pursues improvement through each successive iterative cycle.
McPherson worked with learners recently arrived in Australia who were enrolled in
adult immigrant English classes. The account below is summarized from various
parts of her article (pp. 26–30):
My group was diverse in all the ways that make adult immigrant classes so interesting to
teach. Ages ranged from 22–58 with equal number of males and females. They came from
15 different countries and spoke 17 different languages. Most had come to Australia because
their country of origin was now unsafe for them... My concern was with the wide variation
in the levels of spoken and written English...I was uncertain how to manage the class and
I felt my planning was very ‘hit and miss’...I decided to read the literature on managing
mixed-ability groups and to talk to teachers in [my centre] and in community organisations
and primary school education about strategies they used...
As a result I decided to focus on developing materials and activities at different levels and
to observe the response of the learners to these materials. I documented these observations
[using a journal and drawing up diagrams of classroom interaction] and began to realise how
994 A. Burns
much I tended to ‘control’their learning by dispersing materials at ‘appropriate’levels.
When I allowed the students to take control, they worked with the [materials] in different
ways which they found personally effective...
However, at this point I became concerned about another aspect of the class. I observed
that the students would not cooperate to undertake joint activities. They were also starting
to express exasperation, boredom, irritation and once, near hostility, as I brought to the
classroom lessons and activities [about personal experiences] I thought were interesting
and relevant, but which they were not prepared to participate in... I decided on a strategy of
individual consultation. I spoke to each student about what they were learning, how they
were learning and how they could develop their skills. I documented their comments
and followed with activities designed to enhance their requested learning areas. I also
documented comments on their reactions to my classroom activities...
I began to see emerging patterns and to uncover the reasons for the rejected activities.
Student comments and reactions indicated that discussions that revolved around cultural or
social difference were not acceptable...On a class excursion, I learned that the students were
aware of deep ethnic, religious and political differences because or their experiences of the part
of the world they had just left [former Yugoslavia]...I suddenly realised how difficult it had
been for them to maintain the veneer of courtesy and civility when I was introducing activities
which demanded that they expose and discuss the differences they were attempting to ignore!
As the account by McPherson (1997) suggests, various types of data collection
are used in action research. Action research is not exclusively either qualitative or
quantitative in its methodological approaches, and a researcher may draw on both
forms of data to address the issues being researched and compare them to triangulate
the evidence. Burns (2010) categorizes the most commonly used methods across a
qualitative-quantitative spectrum as observational and non-observational (Table 2).
To summarize some of the essential concepts and principles of action research:
1. Action research involves a combination of action and research that means
collecting data systematically about actions, ideas, and practices as they occur
naturally in daily life.
2. Action research is localized and typically small-scale. It investigates problems of
direct relevance to the researchers in their social contexts, that is, it is based on
specific issues of practice.
Table 2 Observational and nonobservational methods for action research
Observational Non-observational
Brief notes or recorded comments made by the
teacher while the class is in progress
Audio or video-recordings of classroom
interaction
Observation by self or colleague on particular
aspects of classroom action
Transcripts of classroom interactions between
teacher and students or students and students
Maps, layouts, or sociograms of the classroom that
trace the interactions between students and teacher
Photographs of the physical context
Questionnaires and surveys
Interviews
Class discussions/focus groups
Diaries, journals, and logs kept by teacher
or learners
Classroom documents, such as materials
used, samples of student writing, or tests
54 Action Research in English Language Teaching: Contributions and... 995
3. Action research is a reflective process aimed at changes and improvements in
practice. Changes come from systematically and (self)-critically evaluating the
evidence from the data.
4. Action research is participatory, as the actor is also the researcher and the research
is done most effectively through collaboration with others.
Historical and Philosophical Evolution of Action Research
Although Collier (1945), who worked with North American Indian communities,
may have been the first to actually use the term “action research”(McTaggart 1991),
it was Kurt Lewin who elaborated and developed its conceptual framework (see
Kemmis and McTaggart 1988b). Lewin was a social psychologist who applied
theories of group dynamics and human relations training to his investigations of
social problems in America in the 1940s (e.g., Lewin 1947). Both Collier and Lewin
aligned with principles of democratic collaboration with those involved in the social
situation in which they worked. Lewin’s notable contribution was his construction
of a theoretical model, consisting of action cycles of analysis, fact-finding, concep-
tualization, planning, implementation, and evaluation (Lewin 1947). He also argued
that practitioners from the target research communities should be included as
co-researchers working with professional researchers. His student and colleague,
Alfred Marrow (1969), referred to him in the title of his book as a “practical
theorist.”
During the 1950s, Stephen Corey led the growing interest in the USA in
cooperative action research (Verduin 1967), where teachers and schools worked
with external researchers. By the late 1950s, however, action research was
increasingly criticized for its lack of rigor and generalizability and was falling
into disrepute. Indeed, Corey’s own arguments toward action research retained a
strong flavor of adherence to the conventional scientific research paradigms of
the time. The concepts of action research in this period have been characterized
as essentially “technical”and individualistic (see Burns 2011,forfurther
discussion).
Action research received a new lease of life in the late 1960s and 1970s, as
interest in curriculum theory (Schwab 1969) and its linkages to a teacher-
researcher movement (Stenhouse 1971)grew.InBritain,theworkofLawrence
Stenhouse and others in the Humanities Curriculum Project (1967–72) emphasized
that curriculum theory, research, and evaluation could not be separated from
teaching. Rather than focusing on how research could improve curricula,
Stenhouse was interested in how teachers as researchers interacted with the
curriculum. Thus, Stenhouse’s work tended toward a “practical”model of action
research (Grundy 1987). Significant developments that followed were the Ford
Teaching Project (1972–75) directed by Stenhouse’s colleagues, John Elliott and
Clem Adelman, and the establishment of the Classroom Action Research Network
(CARN), which continues to this day.
996 A. Burns
Critical or emancipatory models of educational action research emanated largely
from the work of Stephen Kemmis and his colleagues at Deakin University
in Australia (Kemmis and McTaggart 1982). Critical action research “promotes
a critical consciousness which exhibits itself in political as well as practical action
to promote change”(Grundy 1987, p. 154). Critical action research theorists ques-
tion what they see as the passive foundations of technical and practical models.
Critical action research is embedded in notions of the empowerment of practitioners
as participants in the research enterprise, the struggle for more democratic forms of
education, and the reform of education from the insider perspective. It is to this
critical approach that participatory action research is most essentially related (see
Auerbach 1994).
These three broad approaches to action research differ, not so much in their
methodologies but in the underlying assumptions of the protagonists. Table 3
summarizes the broad differences.
Hereitisworthnotingalsothatthephilosophical values and methods adopted
in action research can be linked to a wider tradition of contextualized or ecolog-
ical research reflected in the work of social psychologists such as Vygotsky,
Bronfenbrenner, Cole, and Wertsch and educationalists such as Dewey (van
Lier 2011).
Table 3 Approaches to action research
Technical AR Practical AR Critical AR
Philosophical
base
Natural sciences Hermeneutics Critical theory
Nature of
reality
Measurable Multiple, holistic,
constructed
Interrelated with social
and political power
structures
Nature of
problem
Predefined
(problem posing)
Defined in context
(problem solving)
Defined in context in
relation to emerging
values (problematizing)
Status of
knowledge
Separate, deductive Inductive, theory
producing
Inductive, theory
producing, emancipatory,
participatory
Nature of
understanding
Events explained in
terms of real causes
and simultaneous
effects
Events described in terms
of interaction between the
external context and
individual thinking
Events understood in
terms of political,
economic, and social
constraints to improved
conditions
Purpose of
research
Discover “laws”of
underlying reality
Discover the meanings
people make of actions
Understand what impedes
more democratic and
equal practices
Change
outcomes
Change is value
free and short-lived
Change is value bounded
and dependent on
individuals involved
Change is value relative
and leads to ongoing
emancipation
Adapted with permission from Masters, J. (2000). The History of Action Research (p. 7), Retrieved
October 5, 2002 from http://www.fhs.usyd.edu/arer/003.htm. Copyright 1995–2000 The University
of Sydney and Authors
54 Action Research in English Language Teaching: Contributions and... 997
The Development of Action Research in ELT
In the 1980s, action research was barely discussed in the field of ELT and applied
linguistics. This is not to say that it was completely unrecognized or that calls
for teacher involvement in research were not being made. For example, Breen and
Candlin’s(1980) proposals that curriculum evaluation should be an integral aspect of
classroom teaching and learning foreshadowed shifts toward an action research
orientation, while calls for more active participation of teachers in classroom-
centered research were increasing (e.g., Allwright 1988; Long 1983). Toward the
end of the 1980s, van Lier (1988) was arguing for “ethnographic monitoring”of
classroom curriculum processes and, like others, was pointing out that action research
had “not so far received much serious attention as a distinct style of research in
language teaching”(p. 67).
Nunan’s publication, Understanding Language Classrooms (1989), subtitled
A Guide for Teacher-initiated Action, offered, for the first time, a practical guide
for the language teacher.
The intention is to provide a serious introduction to classroom research to language
professionals who do not have specialist training in research methods... it is aimed
specifically at the classroom teacher and teachers in preparation. (p. xiv)
Work by others, such as Allwright and Bailey (1991), Brindley (1990), Edge
and Richards (1993), Freeman (1998), Richards and Nunan (1990), and Wallace
(1991), continued to open up the concept of an active and reflective role for teacher
educators and teachers, which included the notion of teacher as researcher.
It represented a “paradigm shift”(Edge 2001) that now no longer seems controver-
sial. However, at the time it stood in stark contrast to the applied science model,
where research and practice were largely regarded as separate pursuits. Perspectives
within the field were being revised from a predominantly “theory-applied-to-
practice”approach toward a more “theory-derived-from-practice”perspective
(cf Graves 1996; Richards and Nunan 1990). Specific treatments of action research
within this paradigm emerged in Burns (1999), Edge (2001), and Wallace (1998).
While Burns (1999) and Wallace (1998) provided “how-to”accounts that outlined
ways to conduct action research, Edge (2001) offered descriptions written by
teachers of how they had carried out research within their own social settings,
stressing in his preface that “[l]ocal understandings are primary, and it is in the
articulation of these understandings that actual educational practice can be theorised
(the contribution to theory) and improved (the contribution to practice)”(p. 4).
Action Research Within ELT Research
Borg (2013) notes that his research findings showed that teachers’conceptions
of research were aligned to “standard”scientific notions of enquiry. The question
of how action research is positioned in relation to the range of approaches adopted in
research is one that often confronts and confuses those new to action research.
998 A. Burns
Action research is sometimes represented as a “third way”of doing research.
Brindley (1990), for example, outlines basic (concerned with knowledge for its
own sake), applied (directed at specific problems), and practitioner (undertaken
by participants in the context of their own work) research. Bailey et al. (1991)
distinguish action research from experimental studies, those that “emphasize careful
isolation of variables functions and target subjects, a high degree of control over
external variables and clearly defined research goal”and naturalistic enquiry, where
“the general goal of enquiry is to understand the phenomenon under investigation”
(pp. 94–95). Cumming (1994) categorizes orientations to TESOL research as
descriptive (concerned with the goals of general scientific inquiry), interpretive
(concerned with the purpose of interpreting local institutional issues in their cultural
contexts), and ideological (concerned with advocating and fostering ideological
change within particular contexts and broader domains), which includes participa-
tory action research. Nunan and Bailey (2009), having outlined major paradigms
of quantitative (experimental, survey) and qualitative research (case study, ethnog-
raphy), devote a separate discussion to action research.
Classroom research, teacher research, and action research have all become famil-
iar terms in recent ELT literature. However, since they are often used interchange-
ably, the distinctions are not necessarily clear. Bailey (2001) comments that “[action
research] is sometimes confused with teacher research and classroom research
because in our field, action research is often conducted by teachers in language
classrooms”(p. 490). Borg (2013, p. 8) claims that teacher research is a “broader
term than action research –while action research (when conducted by teachers) will
also be teacher research, not all teacher research follows the procedures which define
action research.”
It could be argued that whereas classroom research denotes the focus of
the research and teacher research refers to the people conducting the research, action
research refers to a distinctive methodological orientation to research, a “way of
working”as Kemmis and McTaggart (1988b, p. 174) describe it. Allwright and
Bailey (1991,p.2)define classroom research as research that is centered on the
classroom, as distinct from research that concerns itself with the inputs (curriculum,
materials, and so on) or the outputs (test scores). In its narrowest form, it emphasizes
the study of classroom interaction. Allwright and Bailey (ibid) take a broader view,
defining classroom research as “a cover term for a whole range of research studies on
classroom learning and teaching. The obvious unifying factor is that the emphasis
is solidly on trying to understand what goes on in the classroom setting”(p. 2).
Teacher research, that is, research conducted by teachers, may well center on
the classroom but does not necessarily do so. For example, a teacher might identify
the effects of out-of-class learning on students’communicative competence (see
Cortina-Pérez and Solano-Tenorio 2013 for an example). Classroom research is
often conducted by academic researchers whose studies relate to questions
of classroom teaching and learning. Many of these studies have been conducted
in experimental laboratory settings (e.g., Gass et al. 2011) set up for the testing
of theoretical hypotheses, although in the last two decades, a greater number of
exploratory and descriptive studies located in natural classroom settings have
appeared (e.g., Toohey 1998). Action research, on the other hand, is not confined
54 Action Research in English Language Teaching: Contributions and... 999
to the classroom or to teachers. It is implemented in a wide range of settings and
not focused exclusively on educational questions. It involves an iterative process of
research rather than a specific type of researcher or research location. All three types
of research may adopt a wide range of qualitative and quantitative methodological
approaches to data collection, data analysis, and interpretation depending on the
kinds of research issues under investigation.
Impact of Action Research on Teachers
For over two decades, there has been growing evidence, albeit sometimes anecdotal,
that action research offers teachers transformative experiences of professional devel-
opment. Van Lier (1994), for example, citing Bennett (1993, p. 69), noted a range of
impacts on teachers:
Experienced teacher-researchers stated that their research brought them many personal
and professional benefits, including increased collegiality, a sense of empowerment,
and increased self-esteem. Teacher-researchers viewed themselves as being more open to
change, more reflective, and better informed than they had been when they began their
research. They now saw themselves as experts in their field who were better problem solvers
and more effective teachers with fresher attitudes toward education. They also saw strong
connections between theory and practice.
Borg (2013), drawing on some of the more recent literature, indicated that
research conducted by teachers develops the capacity for autonomous professional
judgments and reduces teachers’feelings of frustration and isolation. It also allows
teachers to move out of a submissive position and be curriculum innovators, as well
as to become more reflective, critical, and analytical about their teaching behaviors
in the classroom. Teachers can also feel less vulnerable to and dependent on external
answers to the challenges they face. Doing research can foster connections between
teachers and researchers and boost teachers’sense of status.
Teachers’own accounts of their experiences of action research also point to
numerous positive outcomes. As an example, Castro Garcés and Martínez Granada
(2016, p. 53) note that for them conducting collaborative action research (CAR)
meant that:
1. We were able to study together in order to internalize and put into practice the
main constructs that supported our research –professional development
and CAR.
2. We gained a better understanding of basic concepts and theories related to the
teaching of foreign languages as we read and discussed research articles together,
met to plan lessons, collected and analyzed data, and talked about our own
teaching practices.
3. Writing the journal entries was an opportunity to reflect upon the research process
and our attitudes as team members.
4. We could grow professionally in terms of reading and reflecting together as well
as sharing positive and negative issues lived in our classes.
1000 A. Burns
5. We moved from having each participant do a piece of work in isolation to
planning and working together.
6. The roles we had in the research study were different as well as the level of
training; however, it was rewarding to notice that we could learn from each other
no matter how much we thought we knew about a topic.
However, skepticism about action research by teachers is long-standing.
Commentators from Halsey (1972) onward have pointed to fundamental tensions
between action and research and to the differing, and inherently incompatible,
interests and orientations of teachers and researchers. Others have questioned
whether it is the business of teachers to do research at all, given that they usually
have no specialist training (e.g., Jarvis 2002a,b), while the academic status and
the rigor of the methodological procedures have also been the subject of debate
(e.g., Brumfit and Mitchell 1989). Yet others appear to believe that teachers are not
interested or willing to do action research: “I am still to meet a teacher who has been
voluntarily involved in it”(Dörnyei 2007, p. 191).
At a more pragmatic level, teachers themselves may well resist calls to become
researchers. Action research imposes a double burden of teaching and research, which
adds to the already complex lives of teachers. The rewards for doing action research
must offset the time and additional efforts involved. As van Lier (1994, p. 33) argued
over two decades ago: “if action research is going to make us even more exhausted
than we already are, then it will not be a popular or successful activity...It has to
enrich our professional life.”Some teachers may also question whether the growing
insistence by government ministries and other educational bodies that they research
their practice is not another way to ensure they become compliant with organizational
agendas; as one teacher (cited in Miller 1990, p. 114) observed:
Well, what I mean is that nothing would please some administrators I know more than to
think that we were doing “research”in their terms. That’s what scares me about the phrase
“teacher-as- researcher”— too packaged. People buy back in to the very system that shuts
them down. ...But I’m still convinced that if enough people do this, we could get to a point
of seeing at least a bigger clearing for us.
Despite these reservations, the idea of teachers carrying out action research is
perhaps no longer so much in contention or maybe “has come of age”as is argued
in Denos et al. (2009, p. ix). Nevertheless, there are many aspects of action research
that remain to be more fully understood. Allwright (1997) and Nunan (1997) debated
the following issues: What are the standards by which action research is to be judged,
and should they be the same as for other forms of research? Should action research
conform to existing academic criteria? What ethical considerations need to be brought
to bear on research that is highly contextualized in practice? How should action
research be reported? What tensions exist between the quality of action research and
its sustainability by practitioners? These questions remain current even after two
decades. Borg (2013, pp. 228–230) adds further questions including the nature of
teacher research engagement, the implications for teacher identity, the attitudes of
managers, the design of teacher research support courses, the role in pre-service and
in-service teachers’lives of conducting research, and the benefits to them.
54 Action Research in English Language Teaching: Contributions and... 1001
On the subject of rigor, validity, and appropriateness, Bailey (1998) suggests that
action research should not be judged by the traditional criteria of random selection,
generalizability, and replicability, as its central goals are to establish local under-
standings. A basic criterion for validity will rest on the question: Is what the
researcher is claiming on the basis of the data meaningful, believable, and trustwor-
thy (Anderson et al. 1994), and to what extent does this research resonate with
my understandings of practice and have meaning in my context? (see Burns 1999).
In sum, a major, and continuing, challenge in action research will be “to define and
meet standards of appropriate rigor without sacrificing relevance”(Argyris and
Schön 1991, p. 85).
Recent Initiatives
Burns (2007, p. 999) concluded that it was only over the previous decade that action
research had “become influential in the ELT field,”in the sense that it was beginning
to pervade the teacher education literature. At the time, however, research activity by
teachers and particularly published accounts by them were still extremely limited.
Although there were “pockets”of noticeable action research activity in various
locations (e.g., Burns 1999 in Australia; Edge and Richards 1993 in the UK; Mathew
et al. 2000 in India; the journal Profile initiated in 2000 in Colombia; Tinker-Sachs
2002 in Hong Kong, and Wang (2002) in China), there was still limited evidence
from teachers internationally of engagement in research.
The last decade, however, has seen several developments which have consider-
ably spurred the teacher research movement, of which action research is a major part.
These include a number of key publications that have brought attention to research
by teachers and have motivated further interest (e.g., Borg 2013; Burns 2010;
the TESOL Language Teacher Research series 2006–2009 edited by Farrell).
Other major initiatives have opened up more opportunities for teachers to involve
themselves in research programs that provide them with guidance and support and
forums for working with other teachers and academic facilitators. These include
those funded by Cambridge Assessment English, first in Australia from 2010 (see
Burns and Khalifa 2017), and then in the UK from 2014 (Borg 2015) which involve
teachers of international students in each of those countries. The British Council has
also funded several programs, including in India and Chile (see Smith et al. 2014).
The International TESOL Association has offered preconvention workshops for
teachers interested in research since 2008. Since around 2013, the professional
association, IATEFL, through its Research Special Interest Group has concentrated
on strengthening the movement toward teacher research through its daylong pre-
conference events. IATEFL has also sponsored Teacher Research! conferences
devoted to action research and other forms of investigation by teachers in Turkey
since 2015 (see Burns et al. 2017). In 2017, the International Festival of Teacher-
research in ELT, initiated by Richard Smith, aimed to unite online (see https://
trfestival.wordpress.com/about/) various disparate teacher research activities across
the globe. (See Burns in press for more extended discussion of the development of
the teacher research movement over the last three decades.)
1002 A. Burns
Conclusion
From this broad overview, it can be seen that although action research developed
relatively early in the twentieth century, it is only in the last two or three decades that
it has received attention in the field of ELT field. Although action research, and
research by teachers more generally, seems to be gaining more widespread popular-
ity, there remain many questions about appropriate standards and forms of action
research, ways of supporting teachers to undertake and publish research, ways it can
be promoted and sustained for personal and organizational benefits, and what impact
action research by teachers has on teaching practice and on student learning. In the
meantime, it is clear that there is a broad movement away from decontextualized and
abstract forms of knowledge and enquiry in the ELT field, as in other disciplines.
There is a shift toward the concept of language professionals as informed agents
rather than merely as recipients of external knowledge. As the term action research
implies, it appears to be an approach that is well suited to this change and under the
right conditions can be deployed to the benefit of learners, teachers, and language
education more generally.
Cross-References
▶Qualitative Approaches to Classroom Research on English-Medium Instruction
▶“Research by Design”: Forms of Heuristic Research in English Language
Teaching
References
Allwright D (1988) Observation in the language classroom. Longman, London
Allwright D (1997) Quality and sustainability in teacher-research. TESOL Q 31(2):368–370
Allwright D, Bailey K (1991) Focus on the language classroom. Cambridge University Press,
Cambridge
Allwright D, Hanks J (2009) The developing language learner: an introduction to exploratory
practice. Palgrave Macmillan, Basingstoke
Anderson GL, Herr K, Nihlen AS (1994) Studying your own school: an educator’s guide to
qualitative practitioner research. Corwin Press, Thousand Oaks
Argyris C, Schön D (1991) Participatory action research and action science compared: a commen-
tary. In: Whyte WF (ed) Participatory action science. Sage, Newbury Park, pp 85–98
Auerbach E (1994) Participatory action research. TESOL Q 28(4):693–697
Bailey K (1998) Approaches to empirical research in instructional settings. In: Byrnes H
(ed) Perspectives in research and scholarship in second language teaching. The Modern
Language Association of America, New York, pp 123–178
Bailey K (2001) Action research, teacher research, and classroom research in language teaching.
In: Celce-Murcia M (ed) Teaching English as a second or foreign language, 3rd edn. Heinle &
Heinle, Boston, pp 489–498
Bailey K, Omaggio-Hadley A, Magnan S, Swaffer J (1991) Research in the 1990s: focus on theory
building, instructional innovation and collaboration. Foreign Lang Ann 24:89–100
Bennett CK (1993) Teacher-researchers: all dressed up and no place to go? Educ Leadersh
51(2):69–70
54 Action Research in English Language Teaching: Contributions and... 1003
Borg S (2013) Teacher research in language teaching. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge
Borg S (2015) Professional development through the Cambridge English/English UK Action
Research Scheme. Res Notes 61:3–5
Breen MP, Candlin CN (1980) The essentials of a communicative curriculum in language teaching.
Appl Linguis 1:89–112
Brindley G (1990) Towards a research agenda for TESOL. Prospect 6(1):7–26
Brumfit C, Mitchell R (1989) The language classroom as a focus for research. In: BrumfitC,
Mitchell R (eds) Research in the language classroom. ELT Documents 133. Modern English
Publications and The British Council, London, pp 3–15
Burns A (1999) Collaborative action research for English language teachers. Cambridge University
Press, Cambridge
Burns A (2007) Action research: contributions and future directions in ELT. In: Cummins J,
Davison C (eds) The international handbook of English language teaching. Springer,
New York, pp 987–1002
Burns A (2010) Doing action research in English language teaching: a guide for practitioners.
Routledge, New York
Burns A (2011) Action research in the field of second language teaching and learning. In: Hinkel E
(ed) Handbook of research in second language teaching and learning, vol II. Routledge,
New York, pp 237–253
Burns A (in press) Action research: developments, characteristics and future directions.
In: Benati A, Schwieter JW (eds) The Cambridge handbook of language learning. Cambridge
University Press, Cambridge
Burns A, Khalifa H (eds) (2017) Second language assessment and action research. SiLT series.
Cambridge University Press, Cambridge
Burns A, DikilitaşK, Smith R, Wyatt M (eds) (2017) Developing insights into teacher-research.
IATEFL, Faversham. Downloadable from http://resig.weebly.com/developing-insights-into-
teacher-research.html
Castro Garcés AY, Martínez Granada L (2016) The role of collaborative action research in teachers’
professional development. Profile Issues Teach Prof Dev 18(1):39–54
Coghlan D, Shani AB (eds) (2016) Action research in business and management. Sage, London
Collier J (1945) United States Indian administration as a laboratory of ethnic relations. Soc Res
12(3):265–303
Cortina-Pérez B, Solano-Tenorio L-M (2013) The effect of using out-of-class contexts on EFL
learners: an action research. Calidoscópio 11(2):167–117
Cumming A (1994) Alternatives in TESOL research: descriptive, interpretive and ideological
orientations. TESOL Q 28(4):673–676
Dana NF, Yendol-Hoppey D (2008) The reflective educator’s guide to professional development:
coaching inquiry-oriented learning communities. Corwin Press, Thousand Oaks
Denos C, Toohey K, Neilson K, Waterstone B (2009) Collaborative research in multilingual
classrooms. Multilingual Matters, Bristol
Dörnyei Z (2007) Research methods in applied linguistics. Oxford University Press, Oxford
Edge J (ed) (2001) Action research. TESOL, Alexandria
Edge J, Richards K (eds) (1993) Teachers develop teachers’research. Heinemann, London
Farrell TSC (2018) Research on reflective practice in TESOL. Routledge, New York
Freeman D (1998) Doing teacher research: from inquiry to understanding. Heinle & Heinle, Boston
Gass S, Mackey A, Ross-Feldman L (2011) Task-based interactions in classroom and laboratory
settings. Lang Learn 61:189–220
Graves K (1996) Teachers as course developers. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge
Grundy S (1987) Curriculum: product or praxis. Falmer Press, London
Halsey AH (ed) (1972) Educational priority. Volume 1. E. P.A. Problems and policies. HMSO,
London
Jarvis S (2002a) Research in TESOL Part I. TESOL Res Interest Sect Newsl 8(3):1–2
Jarvis S (2002b) Research in TESOL Part II. TESOL Res Interest Sect Newsl 9(1):1–2
1004 A. Burns
Kemmis S, McTaggart R (eds) (1982) The action research reader. Deakin University Press, Geelong
Kemmis S, McTaggart R (eds) (1988a) The action research planner, 3rd edn. Deakin University
Press, Geelong
Kemmis S, McTaggart R (eds) (1988b) The action research reader, 3rd edn. Deakin University
Press, Geelong
Koshy E, Koshy V, Waterman H (2011) Action research in healthcare. Sage, London
Lewin K (1947) Frontiers in group dynamics: II. Channels of group life; social planning and action
research. Hum Relat II:142–153
Long M (1983) Training the second language teacher as classroom researcher. In: Alatis JE,
Stern HH, Strevens P (eds) Applied linguistics and the preparation of teachers: towards
a rationale. Georgetown University Press, Washington, DC, pp 281–297
Marrow A (1969) The practical theorist: the life and work of Kurt Lewin. Basic Books, New York
Masters J (2000) The history of action research. Retrieved 5 Oct 2002 from http://casino.cchs.usyd.
edu.au/arow//arer/00
Mathew R, Eapen RL, Tharu J (eds) (2000) The language curriculum: dynamics of change,
Vol 1. The outsider perspective. Report of the International Seminar 1995. Central Institute
for English and Foreign Language Studies, Orient Longman, Hyderabad
Maurer M, Githens RP (2010) Toward a reframing of action research for human resource and
organization development: moving beyond problem solving and toward dialogue. Action Res
8:267–292
McPherson P (1997) Action research: exploring learner diversity. Prospect 12(1):50–62
McTaggart R (1991) Action research. A short modern history. Deakin University Press, Geelong
Miller J (1990) Creating spaces and finding voices: teachers collaborating for empowerment. State
University of New York Press, Albany
Nunan D (1989) Understanding language classrooms: a guide for teacher-initiated action. Prentice
Hall, New York
Nunan D (1997) Developing standards for teacher-research in TESOL. TESOL Q 31(2):365–337
Nunan D, Bailey KM (2009) Exploring second language classroom research. Heinle/Cengage
Learning, Boston
Richards JC, Nunan D (eds) (1990) Second language teacher education. Cambridge University
Press, Cambridge
Schwab J (1969) College curricula and student protest. University of Chicago Press, Chicago
Smith R, Connelly T, Robolledo P (2014) Teacher research as continuing professional development:
a project with Chilean secondary school teachers. In: Hayes D (ed) Innovations in the continuing
professional development of English language teachers. British Council, London, pp 111–132
Stenhouse L (1971) The humanities curriculum project: the rationale. Theory Pract X(3):154–162
Tinker-Sachs G (2002) Action research. Fostering and furthering effective practices in the teaching
of English. City University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong
Toohey K (1998) “Breaking them up, taking them away”: ESL students in Grade 1. TESOL Q
32(1):61–84
van Lier L (1988) The classroom and the language learner. Longman, London
van Lier L (1994) Action research. Sintagma 6:31–37
van Lier L (2011) Language learning: an ecological-semiotic approach. In: Hinkel E (ed) Handbook
of research in second language teaching and learning, vol II. Routledge, New York, pp 383–394
Verduin J (1967) Cooperative curriculum improvement. Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs
Wallace M (1991) Training foreign language teachers. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge
Wallace M (1998) Action research for language teachers. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge
Wang Q (2002) Action research for English teachers. Foreign Language Teaching and Research
Press, Beijing
Winter R, Munn-Giddings C (2001) A handbook for action research in health and social care.
Routledge, Abingdon
54 Action Research in English Language Teaching: Contributions and... 1005
