CC BY
17
УДК 811.111 (045)
Кузнецова И. А.
Удмуртский Государственный Университет, Ижевск, Россия
КОНТЕКСТНОЕ ИССЛЕДОВАНИЕ ДЛЯ ПРЕПОДАВАТЕЛЕЙ АНГЛИЙСКОГО ЯЗЫКА
Преподавателям английского языка в России ещё не очень хорошо знакомо такое направление в исследовательской деятель -ности учителя, как Action Research. Смысл данного подхода к исследовательской деятельности передают такие русские понятия, как контекстное исследование, исследование в действии или активное исследование. Цель данной работы - в популяризации и в продвижении контекстного исследования среди учителей -практиков. В статье представлены несколько определений контекстного исследования, рассматривается его типичный цикл и шаги исследователя. Акцент делается на осознанном намерении и целе-полагании улучшить эффективность своей деятельности в качестве преподавателя английского языка. Исследователь -практик намеренно собирает данные, касающиеся того, как происходит учебный процесс, анализирует эти данные в свете того, что хотелось бы изменить или улучшить, активно ищет возможные пути решения обозначенного исследовательского вопроса, вводит в практику и, наконец, делится результатами и своими соображениями по поводу всего исследовательского цикла с коллегами посредством публикации. Особое внимание в контекстных исследованиях уделяется саморефлексии относительно собственных установок, принципов и привычных действий. Считаем, что такие рассужде -ния, подкрепленные объективными данными, а также изученной литературой и обобщением лучших практик коллег, повышает профессионализм преподавателя английского языка, а также развивает саму профессию.
Ключевые слова: контекстное исследование, профессиональное развитие, саморефлексия, преподаватель-исследователь.
Kuznetsova I. A.
Udmurt State University, Izhevsk, Russia
ACTION RESEARCH FOR EFL TEACHERS
TEFL community in Russia is not very well familiar with Action Research (AR) as a research approach, so this paper informs and encourages EFL practitioners to become action researchers, or researchers into their own teaching practice. Through considering definitions of AR we look at the research cycles and outline the major steps of the research process. The major thing about AR is that practitioner researchers are intentional in their work of collecting data, then, using the data to make decisions about their practice and their students' learning, and finally, sharing their results. The emphasis is on how AR lets EFL professionals reflect on their teaching practices and beliefs. This reflection on the day-today classroom experiences will produce findings that support practice. Writing AR reports allows teachers to become more consciously intentional of their actions and more thoughtful and reflective of their practices.This is a good way of professional growth, as well as of the TEFL field development.
Key words: action research, professional development, reflection, research paper.
Teaching English, just like education in general, involves much more than the development of knowledge and skills. On the one hand, there is a formal demand for teaching to become a research-based profession. On the other hand, one might feel that being able to conduct and understand research is vital for the professional development. Fortunately, there is a lot of intrinsic motivation and drive in EFL field. A lot of practitioners indicate that the secret of success and satisfaction in the teaching profession is to continually grow and learn.It is true, though, that for many young EFL teachers this «growing and learning» is purely an abstract and sometimes chaotic thing to do. But there is a very specific and focused way of doing so. This way is called Action Research (AR). Unfortunately, this kind of practitioner research is still only finding its way among EFL educators in Russia, whilst for the global EFL community AR is a familiar and convenient frame to do research, i.e. to investigate what they are doing with
a view to improving it. This article will briefly summarize what AR is and how it might be helpful to the EFL practitioners in Russia.
Below are a number of definitions of AR. The definitions differ in scope and degree of formality, but one might form a pretty good picture of what makes AR a distinct research tradition in EFL.
• AR is classroom-based research conducted by teachers in order to reflect upon and evolve their teaching. It is a systematic, documented inquiry into one aspect of teaching and learning in a specific classroom [2].
• AR is conducted by teachers and for teachers. It is small scale, contextualized, localized, and aimed at discovering, developing, or monitoring changes to practice [5].
• Action research is a practical way of looking at your work to check that it is as you would like it to be [3].
These definitions indicate that AR is done by the practitioner, so it is often referred to as practitioner based research; and because it involves the practitioner thinking about and reflecting on his / her work, it can also be called a form of self-reflective practice.Of course, good teachers always reflect on their practice, and always think of ways to improve their teaching, so it is necessary to highlight how AR is different.
The major difference is registered in the definitions above. They all highlight one key aspect of AR: careful, systematic and documented reflection, leading to positive changes in teaching and learning. Thus, through purposefully keeping track of how research questions evolve into specific answers, teachers can be sure that the meaningful flashbacks and reflections, as well as sudden brainwaves do not get lost among the usual busy routine of the language teaching profession.
AR surely differs from other research traditions that we are familiar with. The tradition of research in the Russian EFL field is such that most of the practitioners come from the experimental, qualitative-based, statistically-supported research frame. Mostly theoretical, the findings of this research tradition are certainly valuable and have contributed a lot to the development of the EFL field in Russia. Meanwhile a lot of practitioners from other countries underline the flexibility and friendliness of AR as yet another research approach and it seems that we as the Russian TEFL community should investigate and hopefully appreciate these characteristics of AR. Below you will find a short summary of how AR differs from other research traditions that most EFL educators are familiar with [4].
Unlike Quantitative Research, AR usually does not
• set out to prove / disprove an experimental hypothesis
• use control and experimental groups
• involve design that attempts to tightly control variables
• emphasize statistical analyses
• produce broadly generalizable findings
Unlike Qualitative Research, AR
• is research with people not on people
• deliberately intervenes in the research setting to achieve enhanced practice and understanding.
Like Qualitative Research, AR
• is interested in insider perspectives
• is exploratory and descriptive
• has an emergent design; research design may change as more is known about the context
• uses data collected in naturalistic settings.
The central idea of AR is self-reflection. Practitioners think about their own life and work, and this involves them wondering why they do the things that they do, and why they are the way that they are. When a teacher produces a research report, it shows how he/she has carried out a systematic investigation into his/her own behavior. The report shows the process this practitioner has gone through in order to achieve a better understanding of what is going on so that they can continue to develop and grow personally and professionally.
It might be helpful to learn for EFL practitioners that there are a lot of journals out there that regularly feature AR reports. Some of the examples are: Educational Action Research, Action Research, International Journal of Action Research, The Canadian Journal of Action Research, Inquiry in Education, etc. Expectations of the editors of such magazines are worth of a special study, but a brief analysis of editorial notes in the above mentioned journals indicates that AR papers are very much required, for the simple reason that they are practice-oriented. The idea is, that if a practitioner has experienced a problem and has gone through a reflection cycle and analyzed what he/she has discovered against what the professional community already knows or does not know, then, they say, it is most likely that there are other people out there who are or who know they will be in a similar situation, and they want to learn from this teacher researcher. So, very briefly, that is the pragmatics of doing AR.
Action research is open-ended. It does not begin with a fixed hypothesis. It begins with an idea that a practitioner wants to develop. He/she sees how it goes, and continually checks whether it is in line with what has been planned as a desirable objective. Figure 1 shows an open-ended character of a typical AR cycle.
Fig. 1. Cyclical AR model (based on Burns, 2010)
The process illustrated in the diagram is a basic problem solving process. To turn it into an AR process, it is necessary to articulate why a researcher wanted to investigate an issue [this can be anything, such as integrating Reading Circles in the group's reading program , or teaching to write good paragraphs], and gather data to show the process. Then a researcher would turn the data into evidence. Thus, one's hopes would be expressed not as abstract objectives, but as goals that are, most importantly, in line with this practitioner's personal and professional values.
A teacher needs to be reasonably clear why he/she wants to get involved. The reasons for our actions are often rooted in our values base. In the final report a researcher needs to clearly explain the reasons for conducting the study. It might take a form of a brief description of potential
benefits for the researcher's professional development, for the students, the institutions, the profession, or just his/her own set of values. This is how the rationale section of the final paper is furnished.
Some might argue that most people do a lot of informal AR in many aspects of our lives, though we probably do not call what we do AR. And this argument is absolutely true: informal AR is undertaken in many workplace contexts as part of on-the-job professional learning. But when we put a discipline or structure on our everyday learning from experience, and make it clear to other people how we progress from reflecting through acting and understanding to improving, we can say that we are doing AR professionally. And other practitioners will learn about all these things through the published AR reports.
It is difficult to overestimate the importance of AR in how TEFL has been developing and growing as a profession. Many workplaces now encourage practitioners to undertake formal action enquiries as part of their professional learning. AR is now a standard curriculum component of most teacher preparation programs, at a master level. It is valued so much, that an AR (published) paper very often leads to accreditation, and for students this is a full-scale capstone project, the one that leads to getting a Master's degree.
In Russia we operate in a different cultural and educational setting: so far there is no formal acknowledgement based on AR, AR capstones are not integrated into teacher training programs, and on the whole this research philosophy is new, if not foreign to many of the practitioners and administrators. Hopefully, this paper will introduce and popularize AR among EFL community. What many professionals might particularly appreciate is that there is obviously a social intent in an AR endeavor. A teacher improves his/her work for his/her own benefit and the benefit of others.
The methodology of AR is based on accountability. As practitioners, we need to check constantly that what you are doing really is working. This awareness of the need for self-evaluation shows your willingness to accept responsibility for your own thinking and action. Accountability is a part of any good professional practice, and so much so in TEFL. Action research helps us to formalize our learning and gives a clear and justified account of our work, not on a one-off basis, but as a continuing regular feature of your practice.
The standard AR steps are the following:
1. Identify a change.
2. Observe the present situation.
3. Plan different possible interventions.
4. Carry out the intervention.
5. Observe the effects of the intervention.
6. Evaluate results.
7. Sharefindings [1].
These steps are centered around two major processes: systematic actions and learning. The former and the latter embody and inform each other. This is why an AR report should tell not only about the actions of the research, but also about the learning involved. This is why the discussion part of an AR paper is such a big deal. This is where a researcher puts his / her reflections in words.
Reflection overarches any AR cycle. There is a lot of it at the initial stages of the process as well. Practitioners start by identifying an area they wish to investigate, and they need to be reasonably clear why they wish to get involved.
It is important, in action enquiries, to be sure that the issue a researcher has identified is manageable. There are a lot of areas in TEFL that we can do little about. A good example will be teaching mixed ability classes. A researcher should be practical and ask: «Can I actually do something about this issue? Can I influence the situation, or is it outside my scope?». If it really is outside your scope, you should be realistic and leave it. A good idea might be to address one small aspect of your work at a time.
Once you have identified a research issue, you should formulate a research question. This can be stated in terms of How do I...? Here are some examples of this pattern:
• How do I improve my relationships with my colleagues?
• How do I help Student A overcome his fear of speaking in public?
• How do I manage my work schedule more efficiently?
Ann Burns, a leading expert in AR in TEFL, offers a helpful illustration of what makes a bad and a good research question [1]. A careful study of this table will help new AR practitioners to carefully formulate a manageable research question.
Table 1 - Question checklist (adapted and abridged from Burns, 2010)
Sample question Ideas for Comment
question
modification
What improves What kind of The first question
motivation in speaking activities will is too broad and
my class? motivate my students? there will be too
many learning
and teaching
factors to point to
any particular reasons
for improvement.
The second
question allows
for a focus on a
particular skill area.
Can group work How can group The first question
be extended in work be extended invites a yes/ no
my classroom? in my classroom? response.
The second
question allows
for a range of
possibilities to be
identified.
How will using How will using The first question
electronic electronic already assumes
dictionaries dictionaries influence my that the
lead to higher test students' writing? dictionaries will
scores in my make an
students' writing? improvement.
The second
question does not
do that. Finding
that something
doesn't work
may be as
important as
finding that it does.
What is TBLL? What kind of The first question
reading tasks is a very general
work most question; It should be
effectively in my answered by
classroom? reading the
literature on
TBLL.
The second
question allows
you to try out
different kinds of
tasks for teaching
a specific skill
and collect data
on what happens.
As shown in the table, the main idea is to ask a manageable question about something that is important to me as a practitioner, about something that I am hoping to find ways of engaging with.
The next step will be to gather evidence to demonstrate that as a practitioner and a researcher, you are in a situation where things are not as you would wish them to be. This information should help other professionals relate to your teaching context. The data is gathered with the help of a variety of methods - journals, diaries, notes, audio and videotape recordings, surveys, attitude scales, pictures, and so on. A researcher will compare this first set of data with later sets of data, to see whether there is any change and whether he/she has influenced the situation.The general rational for the methods section in the final report is quite universal: one should describe the study's methodological approach [data collection and analysis processes] in enough detail so the reader could reconstruct the study. A strong paper offers justifications related to the data collection / analysis in order to strengthen the study's credibility.
While collecting data, a researcher also starts thinking what can be done about the situation, how the situation can be influenced in an educative way. In other words, a teachers needs to imagine ways in which he / she might begin taking action. At this stage the study will be informed by a literature review, as well as communication with the professional community. It is essential to understand, that a good literature review
should present the reader with enough background to understand how the study fits in with other research.
There is another set of evidence that an action researcher needs to gather. It will show your educative influence. The same, or different, data-gathering methods can be used at this stage. A researcher should try to show, through this set of data, whether there is an improvement in the situation, even though that improvement might be very small. Equally important, in an AR study a researcher should be able to show a development in his/her own thinking and learning. This is an integral part of the AR process, and it also makes AR a powerful methodology for personal and social renewal because professionals are never content to leave problematic situations as they are. As long as an EFL teacher remains aware, alert, constantly open to new beginnings, he / she will continue growing and learning by making use of his/her own teaching experiences.
Literature:
1. Burns, A. Doing Action Research in English Language Teaching: A Guide for Practitioners. New York: Routledge, 2010.
2. Chamot, A., Barnhardt, S., Dirstine, S. Conducting Action Research in the Foreign Language Classroom. P.1. National Capital of Language Research Center. Northeast Conference. New York, NY, 1998. Retrieved from: http://www.nclrc.org/about_teaching/ reports_pub/conducting_action_research.pdf.
3. McNiff, J. Action Research for Professional Development. Bournemouth: Hyde Publications, 1995.
4. Nunan, D. Research Methods in Language Learning. New York: Cambridge University Press, 1992.
5. Wallace, M. J. Action Research for Language Teachers. New York: Cambridge University Press, 2000.
