Educational Action Research

ISSN: 0965-0792 (Print) 1747-5074 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/reac20

Action research and the english as a foreign

language practitioner: time to take stock

Isobel Rainey

To cite this article: Isobel Rainey (2000) Action research and the english as a foreign
language practitioner: time to take stock, Educational Action Research, 8:1, 65-91, DOI:
10.1080/09650790000200112

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09650790000200112

Published online: 20 Dec 2006.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 5060

View related articles

Citing articles: 10 View citing articles

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=reac20

Download by: [200.7.136.39] Date: 09 October 2017, At: 08:01

 Educational Action Research, Volume 8, Number 1, 2000

Action Research and the English

as a Foreign Language Practitioner:
time to take stock

ISOBEL RAINEY
University of Surrey, Guildford, United Kingdom

ABSTRACT In the late 1980s and early 1990s, the field of Teaching English to
Speakers of Other Languages (TESOL) experienced an energetic and
enthusiastic campaign in favour of the practice of action research among
teachers in the profession. Although there are now some positive signs that
action research is practised by teachers working in English as a Foreign
Language (EFL) contexts, it is, as yet, not so clear that such practice is
Downloaded by [200.7.136.39] at 08:01 09 October 2017

widespread. Yet, few educators deny the importance of action research for
‘bridging the gap’ between theory and practice, or the need for that gap to be
bridged in all spheres of the profession. This article reports the result of a
small-scale international survey into the knowledge, practices and opinions of
EFL classroom teachers with respect to action research, and discusses reasons
for and possible solutions to some of the difficulties and limitations of action
research at this level.

Introduction
It is commonly acknowledged that the field of Teaching English to Speakers
of Other Languages (henceforth TESOL) suffers from ‘disorientation,
fragmentation, disunity, and fickleness’ (Murray, 1998, p. 14), and from
‘periodic, radical paradigm shifts’ (Sheen, 1994, p. 127). It is not surprising,
therefore, that when something ‘new’ is proposed, ‘there are good reasons
for being sceptical’ (Crookes, 1993, p. 130). In the late 1980s and early
1990s, TESOL experienced an enthusiastic campaign among its teachers
and teacher educators in favour of the practice of action research, which
although it has a long history, had only just become known in this
profession. (Crookes, 1993). There was some justification for welcoming,
albeit cautiously, this particular ‘innovation’ in as much as the practice of
action research in the English as a Foreign Language [1] (EFL) classroom

65
 Isobel Rainey

heralded hope for closing ‘the gulf between research bodies and the teaching
profession’ (Beasley & Riordan, 1981, cited in Nunan, 1989, p. 2). Fifteen
years on, there is some evidence (Krona, 1988; Naidu et al, 1992; Thorne &
Qiang, 1996; Burns, 1999) that classroom teachers are beginning to find
their ‘voice ... in the process of research’ (Hyatt & Beigy, 1999, p. 31), but it
is still not clear whether the practice of action research is widespread
among practising EFL teachers on an international scale, if indeed it is
widespread in any EFL context at all. On this level, there may even be some
cause for concern. Whereas in the early 1990s there was much evidence of
interest in the practice of action research at international TESOL
conferences, such evidence is no longer so palpable. In 1999, for example,
the author attended three such conferences in Singapore, Turkey and
Canada, but out of a total of some 300 sessions, only five were related to
research based in classroom action. This then beggars the question is action
research now being regarded as yet another ‘unproductive revolution’
(Sheen, p. 128) and no longer worthy of the practising teacher’s attention?
The organisation of international conferences with a specific action research
focus, for example, the TDTR [2] may gradually compensate to some extent
for what could be a lessening of interest in and enthusiasm for action
research within the profession. This might also be the case with those
international conferences that bring together action researchers from
different disciplines, the 8th World Congress on Participatory Action-
Downloaded by [200.7.136.39] at 08:01 09 October 2017

Research (and 4th on Action Research) in Cartagena, Colombia in 1997

being a case in point. It is also possible that, as these international
conferences with a specific focus on action research gather strength, related
activities, such as the publication of conference proceedings, will have a
backwash effect on the general TESOL community. They may serve to
consolidate or revive interest in action research – if indeed it has begun to
wane. In the meantime, however, not only does action research appear to
have a lower profile than it did some 10–15 years ago on the agendas of
international TESOL conferences, but the number of articles reporting the
outcomes of action research based in the EFL classroom has been rather
meagre. What’s more, Rubdy (1998, p. 277) aptly points out that, in the
case of one such publication, namely, Bailey & Nunan’s 1996 collection,
most of the reports are written, not by classroom teachers, but by the
theoretical advocates of action research themselves. Again, this may change
and, in this respect, the publications by Krona, etc., listed above, are
especially encouraging. That output from a range of EFL contexts has been
slow, however, is still disconcerting, as it may indeed indicate that few
practising EFL teachers do action researchers or that those who do it are
not writing up and sharing the outcomes of their research. This, in turn,
leads to two further and major concerns. In as much as ‘research is not
research unless it is communicated’ (Stern, 1983, cited in Crookes 1993,
p. 137), limited output could then undermine the contribution of action
research to the profession. Thus, the relationship between classroom action
research and other forms of research could evolve, and may already have
evolved, into one of a hierarchical nature. At a recent Examiners’ Meeting

66
 ACTION RESEARCH AND EFL PRACTITIONERS

attended by the author, for example, one of the examiners rejected a piece of
research on the grounds that it was ‘just a piece of action research’. This
would then confirm Crookes’ prediction that action research, if not properly
written up, might be regarded as leading to ‘work of poor quality or work
which is undesirable in other ways’ (1993, p. 130). The other major concern
is that, if EFL teachers are either not active in the practice of action
research, or are active, but not sharing the outcomes of their studies, they
will miss out on the exciting opportunity action research offers them to
emancipate themselves from ‘the domination of unexamined assumptions
embodied in the status quo’ (Ericson, 1986, p. 208).
A principal aim of this study was to test the waters with respect to the
knowledge, practices and opinions of action research of a modest
international sample of practising EFL teachers. The survey also hoped to
probe some of the reasons for the issues discussed above, and to propose
possible solutions to the practical problems and professional limitations
classroom teachers encounter with this type of research.
After a brief explanation of the definitions of action research relevant
to the present discussion, the article goes on to explain how the survey was
organised. The results are then reported and analysed, as are those of
follow-up interviews with four of the teachers surveyed and of interviews
related to a piece of relevant second order action research carried out by the
author. The article concludes with some suggestions for ways in which
Downloaded by [200.7.136.39] at 08:01 09 October 2017

those EFL teachers who wish to do action research and report the results of
their endeavours can be supported beyond the conferences, seminars or
courses where they first encounter the concept.

Action Research
There are many definitions of action research, and comparative discussions
of its relationship to similar forms of research such as reflective practice
and exploratory teaching. Such details fall outside the scope of this article
and have, at any rate, been very well documented elsewhere (Allwright,
1991; Wallace, 1991; Nunan, 1992; Farrell, 1998; Burns, 1999). In order to
appreciate the motivation behind this study, it is necessary, however, to
discuss the two views of action research most commonly found in the ELT
literature.
The first view is that of action research for the teacher’s professional
self-development. It involves the teacher working on a small-scale
interventionist level to improve his or her own practice, in line with Halsey
(1972, cited in Cohen & Manion 1994, p. 186). This view is echoed by
Wallace (1991) in his definition, namely that action research ‘... should be
addressed to practical problems and should have practical outcomes ...
(and) ... is simply an extension of the normal reflective practice of many
teachers, but ... is slightly more rigorous’ (Wallace, 1991, p. 56).
The second is that of collaborative action research resulting in critical
reflection and, in turn, to change not just in the immediate environment,

67
 Isobel Rainey

the classroom in the case of education, but in the wider community. This
view is closer to the original perspective on action research, which was first
mooted, not in language teaching, but in the general field of education
(Dewey, 1929) and in the social sciences (Lewin, 1946). The latter ‘saw
action research as a spiralling process of reflection and enquiry with the
potential to become emancipatory and empowering’ (Burns, 1999, p. 27).
This view is endorsed by Carr & Kemmis (1986), who ‘are not satisfied with
a conception of action research in which teachers simply identify a problem
and solve it – they wish to see the development of a cyclical programme of
reform whose results are reflected on and further refined and developed in
collaborative investigative communities’ (Crookes, 1993, p. 135). It was such
investigative communities that Freire (1970), Stenhouse (1975) and
Crawford-Lange (1982) had in mind in their quest for ‘reflection and action
... in order to reform’ (White, 1988).
Central to the discussion in this article is the tenet that it is the first
form of action research that is most widespread in the TESOL profession.
While this form of action research may be suited to the initial needs of EFL
classroom teachers, it is the second type, i.e. collaborative action research
leading to reform, that is more likely to convince and produce the kind of
enduring results classroom teachers aspire to.
Downloaded by [200.7.136.39] at 08:01 09 October 2017

Purpose
The research reported below is mostly of a fact-finding, descriptive nature.
As such, it had several specific aims. First, to find out how widespread the
knowledge of action research is among this international sample of
practising EFL teachers, which form of action research the teachers know
about, if they know about it at all, and whether or not those who know
about it actually practise it. Secondly, to ascertain how those who know
about it heard about it, why EFL teachers who know about action research
do or do not practise it, and whether those who do it write it up. Finally, to
probe the opinions of the grassroots EFL teachers about the concept and
potential of action research. As stated earlier, this was merely an informal
testing of the waters with respect to the knowledge and practices of action
research among a modest international sample. However, the author did
have certain expectations that, for the purpose of this report and given the
discussion in the Introduction, will be called hypotheses, i.e. in the sense of
‘possible explanation for a given situations’. The hypotheses were that most
of the teachers surveyed:
1. would have some knowledge of action research;
2. would have heard only about the first form of action research, i.e. action
research for professional self-development, cf. Action Research above;
3. who have heard about it would not actually practise it;
4. would claim lack of time and insufficient research skills as their main
reasons for not doing action research;
5. who do it would not write regular reports on their action research;

68
 ACTION RESEARCH AND EFL PRACTITIONERS

6. would have heard about it from an overseas speaker at a conference;

7. would be quite sceptical about action research and regard it as just
another fashion in ELT.
The energetic campaign in favour of action research, referred to in the
Introduction, and the survey of the relevant literature in Action Research
generated hypotheses (1) and (2). Hypotheses (3), (4) and (5) focus on the
possible limitations practising teacher might have with respect to action
research, which could result in the limited output, discussed in the
Introduction. Hypotheses (6) and (7) reflect the researcher’s own growing
uneasiness about the possible decline in interest in action research and the
reasons for this decline, also referred to in the Introduction.

Methods
A questionnaire with both open and closed questions was sent out to
practising classroom teachers in 10 countries.[3]

Countries Surveyed
Altogether 240 questionnaires were distributed among the following 10
countries: China, Colombia, Greece, Japan, Morocco, Poland, Qatar, Saudi
Arabia, Thailand and Tunisia. Originally, the aim was to distribute 30
Downloaded by [200.7.136.39] at 08:01 09 October 2017

questionnaires in each country. This was achieved in the case of China,

Colombia, Greece, Japan, Poland and Thailand. It proved impossible in the
case of Morocco, Tunisia, Qatar and Saudi Arabia, however, where 15
questionnaires were distributed in each case. For the purpose of this study,
therefore, and given the geographical closeness and cultural similarities, the
results of the Morocco and Tunisia distributions (30 questionnaires
distributed in total) were combined under the Magreb, and those of Qatar
and Saudi Arabia (30 questionnaires distributed in total) under the Gulf.
The scope of the survey was limited by contacts available to the
author. The aim of targeting most of the major regions of the world was
achieved, however, in as much as the Far East (China and Japan), South
East Asia (Thailand), the Middle East (Qatar and Saudi Arabia), North Africa
(Morocco and Tunisia), Europe (Greece and Poland, and thus both Western
Europe and the former Eastern Bloc), and Latin America (Colombia) are
represented.

Distributors and Respondents

Contact with the distributors was established on an institutional level.
Thus, it was possible to ensure that the distributors themselves were
familiar with the concept of action research and had access to practising
EFL teachers. In some countries, Colombian and Japan, for example, it was
possible to work with two distributors, each in different cities/towns. In
other countries, however, China and Greece, for example, contact was

69
 Isobel Rainey

limited to one distributor. Clear written instructions were sent to the

distributors and in the case of some distributors these were further clarified
during telephone conversations. Distributors were specifically requested to
distribute the questionnaires among a cross section of practising EFL
teachers who had access to sources of professional development – national,
regional conferences, in-service training programmes, EFL journals,
newsletters and so on. There was little point in distributing the
questionnaires to teachers working in remote areas with no professional
development opportunities, as they are unlikely to have had opportunities to
learn about action research. Since this study is concerned solely with the
ordinary classroom practitioner, distributors were asked not to include
teachers who also hold, or currently hold only administrative positions, for
example, teacher trainers, directors of study and coordinators. Similarly,
they were requested not to include in the survey teachers working in
institutions which might be considered ‘privileged’, for example, wealthy
language institutes, bilingual secondary schools, money-generating
university programmes. If a large number of such teachers completed the
survey, the results would not be considered representative of a cross-section
of regular EFL classroom teachers. Although no attempt was made to
exclude certain types of institutions, distributors were asked to target, as far
as possible, secondary school teachers, teachers from less privileged
language institutes, and teachers who teach the language component on
Downloaded by [200.7.136.39] at 08:01 09 October 2017

degree courses at universities, but not teachers within the money-

generating institutes. EFL primary school teachers were not excluded; nor
were they to be deliberately sought out, however. EFL at primary school
level is still an evolving branch of this profession and teachers may as yet
not have been exposed to the kind of professional development which would
provide them with information about action research. Private as well as
state institutions could be surveyed, provided the teachers did not have
special privileges with respect to professional development,
In countries where there was only one, distributors were also asked to
ensure, as far as possible, that within the teachers they surveyed there were
representatives from a variety of institutions or from different parts of their
country or both.

Organisation of the Questionnaire

It was anticipated that not all the respondents would have heard of action
research and that those who have heard of it might not actually practise it.
For this reason, the questionnaire was organised into three sections: A, B
and C. Section A collects data about the respondents’ professional activities
and backgrounds: number, sector and type of institution in which they
work; hours per week; degrees and teaching qualifications; years of
experience and frequency with which they attend professional development
events. All the teachers surveyed were requested to answer Section A, the
last question of which was ‘Have you heard of action research?’ Those who
had not did not complete Sections B and C. Those who had continued on to

70
 ACTION RESEARCH AND EFL PRACTITIONERS

Section B, which looks at what respondents understand by the term action

research, how they heard about it, whether they practise it or not, and why
they do or do not practise it.
Section C is directed only at those respondents who do action research
and elicits information about how they do it, how often they do it, whether
or not they write it up, and elicits ‘any other comments they want to make’
or ‘any other opinions they hold’ about action research. A draft
questionnaire was sent to seven of the distributors for their comments. As a
result, two items were omitted from Section A: gender and average number
of students in the respondents’ classes. One distributor commented that
controlling for gender could be a sensitive issue in her country. Another was
most emphatic that, even though institutions remained unidentified and
respondents anonymous, administrators in certain schools would be most
uneasy if respondents were asked to reveal the average number of students
in their classes.

Outcome of the Survey

Rate of Return
Out of the 240 distributed, 229 were returned. Only one had to be
jettisoned: it had clearly been interfered with. There are several possible
Downloaded by [200.7.136.39] at 08:01 09 October 2017

reasons for this high rate of return. First, the number of questionnaires
distributed in each country was not all that great so it was not such a
burden for the distributors to cooperate. Secondly, as the distributors
themselves were involved in teacher development activities, they may have
taken a keen interest in the topic. Given their willingness to write copious
answers to some of the open questions, Tables II and III, the teachers
surveyed also appeared to be very motivated by the topic.

Profile of the Respondents [4]

As far as the profile of the sample is concerned, it would appear to represent
a fair cross-section of practising EFL teachers: 32.2% (just under a third)
has a heavy teaching commitment – between 21 and 40+ hours a week
(14.5% teaches 21–25, 10.4% teaches 26–30, 4.1% teaches 31–40 and 3.2%
teaches more than 40 hours per week.), cf. ‘Hourswk’ table in Appendix 1.
Over a third (38%) teaches between 16–20 hours, which could be regarded
as a reasonable teaching load and just under a third (29.9%) has a fairly
light teaching commitment of under 16 hours a week so. A total of 27.6%
teaches in more than one institution, cf. ‘Places’ table also in Appendix 1. In
as much as it was drawn from a variety of institution types, the sample was
also appropriate: 33.3% of the respondents teach within university degree
programmes [5], 36.8% at secondary school and 19.7% in language
institutes with the remaining respondents belonging in the primary school,
college or private lessons sectors (cf. ‘Uni’, ‘HighS’ and ‘LangInst’ tables in
Appendix 1). The total of 100.5% derives from the fact that some of the

71
 Isobel Rainey

teachers teach in more than one place and in more than one type of
institution. There was a good balance, too, between state and private sector
with 56.9% teaching in the former and 53.6% in the latter.
Some of the distributors went to amazing lengths to distribute
questionnaires within different institutions or in parts of the country other
than the one they work in. Thus, the distributor in Saudi Arabia sent half of
his questionnaires to Dharhan, although he himself works in Riyadh. The
distributor in Santafe de Bogota, the capital of Colombia situated in the
centre of the country, distributed five of his questionnaires to university
teachers, five to secondary teachers and five to teachers in language
institutes. The other distributor in Colombia, resident in Barranquilla (a city
on the northern coast), distributed hers among participants on an in-service
teacher training programme, which had brought together teachers from all
over the northern region of Colombia and from different institutions. As a
result, and even though most of the distributors were from the capital cities,
37.3% of the respondents were from outside the capital cities.

Results in Terms of the Hypotheses

Hypothesis (1). That most of the teachers surveyed would have some
knowledge of action research was not confirmed. A staggering 171 (75.5%),
cf. Table I, have never heard of action research. These data may be
Downloaded by [200.7.136.39] at 08:01 09 October 2017

somewhat skewed by the participation of the Chinese teachers. (Only two

out of the 30 Chinese teachers surveyed had heard of action research.)
China is still in the early days of ‘opening up’ and an innovation that
influenced TESOL in other parts of the world as recently as the late 1980s
may not, as yet, have found its way into the Chinese TESOL profession. In
addition, all the Chinese teachers who completed the survey came from a
provincial city. When the questionnaires were distributed, no suitable
contacts were available at that point in Beijing, where teachers are more
likely to have immediate access to ‘new’ ideas. Nevertheless, even without
the Chinese teachers, the number of teachers in this sample who have not
heard of action research would still be substantial: 145 out of a new total of
198. What is more, China was not the only country with little knowledge of
action research among the sample of teachers surveyed. Poland returned 28
completed questionnaires, but none of the teachers professed any
knowledge of action research even though the wave of enthusiasm for action
research in TESOL corresponding to the period when Poland was opening
up and Western ‘expertise’ was penetrating the former Eastern Block
countries (Bell & Gower 1998). Similarly, Japan returned 27 completed
questionnaires with only one of the respondents claiming knowledge of
action research. Table I summarises, in terms of countries and regions, the
results of responses to the question Have you ever heard of Action Research?
(last question in Part A.)
The remaining hypotheses, 2–5, are discussed in terms of the 55
respondents who have heard of action research.

72
 ACTION RESEARCH AND EFL PRACTITIONERS

Country or region Yes No

China 2 28
Colombia 16 14
Greece 8 22
Japan 1 26
Magreb 6 20
Poland 9 28
Thailand 13 16
The Gulf – 17
Missing system 2

Totals 55 171

Table I. Number of respondents per country who have (Yes) and

have not (No) heard of action research.

Hypothesis (2). That the teachers would have heard only about the first form
of action research, i.e. action research for professional self-development is
partially confirmed. That this is the form of action research which most of
the teachers have heard of is illustrated in Table II, which contains
responses representative of the answers to the question Explain what you
understand by the term action research (Part B of the questionnaire).

Explain what you understand by the term Action Research

Downloaded by [200.7.136.39] at 08:01 09 October 2017

1. It’s a type of research a teacher can in the classroom on a specific problem

Observation helps (Colombia)
2. Research carried out in the classroom in which a problem is stated, a proposal
is made and implemented and the results analysed (Colombia)
3. Study a specific teaching problem (The Gulf)
4. It is concerned with identifying a specific problem in your class and try to
investigate the reasons of this problem (The Magreb)
5. It is what one tries to find any problems in our work, then analyse why the
problems happen and then tries to find out how to solve the problems (Thailand)
6. Action research is the way to solve the problem and improve our teaching in
order to benefit our students (Thailand)
7. You plan, teach and analyse the classroom procedures to use for subsequent
lessons (Greece)
8. It’s a kind of investigation of one’s work (China)

Table II. Data which indicate that the respondents are familiar with the type of action
research that is aimed mainly at professional self-development.

A total of 53 teachers gave their definitions or explanations of action

research. Of these, 19 referred to ‘solving a problem in my/our classrooms’.
Ten talked about ‘improving/analysing my/our teaching/teaching practices
or our classroom methodology’. A few observations (Table III) would appear,
however, to indicate some understanding of the potential for action research
to have outcomes beyond the classroom.
What’s more, the results of the responses to the question Indicate how
you do action research (Part C of the questionnaire) reveal evidence of

73
 Isobel Rainey

collaborative activity, cf. Appendix 2. While 17 out of the 41 who claim to do

action research work alone, as many as 12 sometimes do action research
with a colleague from their institution, ‘ColmyIns’ table in the Appendix.
Four do it with a colleague from another institution (‘ColotIns’ table in
Appendix) and one (‘Othermode’ table in Appendix) uses a mixed mode.
(‘Sometimes alone and sometimes with a colleague from my school’.)

Explain what you understand by the term Action Research

1. The steps and procedures taken in order to achieve educational purposes
(Colombia) (Purposes here is probably used in the sense of ‘aims’)
2. Taking time out from teaching to review teaching practices and improve the
curriculum ... (Colombia)
3. A form of self-reflective inquiry which is undertaken by participants to improve
rationality and justice (The Gulf)

Table III. Data that indicate that some respondents are aware that action research
can have consequences beyond the classroom.

Thus, in terms of a definition, these 55 teachers are more familiar with the
professional self-development type of action research and appear to have
only a vague notion of its potential role in reform. There is, however, a not
insignificant awareness of its collaborative scope, which almost half of the
active researchers claim to practice.
Downloaded by [200.7.136.39] at 08:01 09 October 2017

Hypotheses 3, 4 and 5. That most of the teachers who had heard about it
would not actually do it. The teachers would claim lack of time and
insufficient research skills as their main reasons for not doing action
research. Most teachers who do it, would not write regular reports on their
research. Hypotheses 3 would appear not to be confirmed in terms of this
sample (Table IV).

Frequency % Valid Cumulati

% ve
%
Valid Regularly 10 18.2 18.5 18.5
Quite often 13 23.6 24.1 42.6
Seldom 18 32.7 33.3 75.9
Never 13 23.6 24.1 100
Total 54 98.2 100
Missing System 1 1.8
Total 55 100

Table IV. Frequency with which those respondents who know about action
research do it.

Forty-one out of the 55 (75.9%) who have heard of action research practise
it. (Ten do it regularly [6], 13 do it quite often and 18 seldom do it.) If,
however, the number of those who seldom do action research 18 (33.3%) is
combined with those who never do it, 13 (24.1%), there is a total of 31

74
 ACTION RESEARCH AND EFL PRACTITIONERS

(57.4%) not very active researchers, in contrast to 23 (42.6%) who do it

regularly.
Hypothesis 4 is partially confirmed, as revealed in the answers to
question: Explain why you do OR do not do action research (Part B of the
questionnaire). The most common reasons for not doing action research is
time: items 2, 5–7 and 10 (Table V), but other interesting reasons also
unfold. For example, the respondents in 3, 4 and 8 would appear to want or
need more training in how to do action research, while the respondent for
item 10 seems to need a supportive, collaborative approach. The
respondents in items 9 (facilities) and 11 (availability of a cooperative
colleague) emphasise the practical problems involved in doing action
research, and respondents 5 and 10 (both from the Magreb) comment on
their ‘lack of motivation’ for doing it. Items 12 and 13, in addition to the
confusion expressed in 13, echo a common reason for not doing action
research expressed by many teachers when they are first introduced to the
concept.

Explain why you do not do Action Research [7]

1. It isn’t easy and requires a lot of attention If you really want to follow the
complete process (Colombia)
2. Due to the amount of work, I have at the moment I don’t have much time to do
systematic and continuous research (Colombia)
Downloaded by [200.7.136.39] at 08:01 09 October 2017

3. It is the first time to know about it this year (The Gulf)

4. I don’t know the basic steps of obtaining such an activity (The Gulf)
5. Time constraints and lack of motivation (Magreb)
6. Overloaded programme. Not enough time to do things when you have to
teach 20 hours a week ( Magreb)
7. No time available (Thailand)
8. I don’t know about the research. It is quite complicated (Thailand)
9. I was very enthusiastic about it at the beginning ... then I stopped because I
couldn’t get any help, no motivation from our Ministry (motivation here is probably
used in the sense of ‘incentive); too many working hours and no facilities (Magreb)
10. Because I don’t have time or persons that talk to me about this (Colombia)
11. I rarely do it because it calls for a cooperative colleague and working loads do
not allow for such work (Colombia)
12. I do not do it because I have always thought I could understand, analyse and
evaluate my teaching situation without the need for formal research (The Gulf).
13. I always improve the methods of teaching ... but I never realise if it is a real
action research (Thailand)

Table V. Data which indicate the main reasons why these EFL teachers do not do
action research.

Hypothesis 5, on the other hand, is rejected in terms of this sample (Table

VI). Of the 41 who do action research, nine always (27.3%) write up their
reports and 16 (48.5%) write them up sometimes, with only five (15.2%) and
three (9.1%) reporting, respectively, that they seldom or never write up their
research. On this score, however, there is little room for optimism, given (a)
there were eight missing values for this question and that the sample of
active action researchers under discussion (41) is very small. What’s more,

75
 Isobel Rainey

future surveys should perhaps delve more deeply into this question of report
writing by asking ‘What do you do with the reports you write? Do you keep
them just for your own records? Do you share them with other teachers? Do
you publish them in regional or national journals or newsletters?’ ‘What
difficulties have you encountered?’ One thing is certain, cf. the Introduction,
as yet, not many of these reports are making their way into the general
TESOL literature.

Frequency % Valid Cumulative

% %
Valid Always 9 16.4 27.3 27.3
Sometimes 16 29.1 48.5 75.8
Seldom 5 9.1 15.2 90.9
Never 3 5.5 9.1 100
Total 33 60.0 100
Missing System 22 40.0
Total 55 100.0

Table VI. Frequency with which respondents write up their action research.

Hypotheses 6 and 7. That the teachers would have heard about it from an
overseas speaker at a conference. Most teachers would be quite sceptical
about action research and regard it as just another fashion in ELT. These
Downloaded by [200.7.136.39] at 08:01 09 October 2017

hypotheses are not confirmed. The responses to the open and closed
questions that elicited the relevant data for these hypotheses are among the
most encouraging outcomes of this study. Thirty-one (58.5%), have heard
about action research from a university teacher from their own country (see
Figure 1), where the results to the question ‘How did you first hear of action
research?’ (Section B of the questionnaire) are shown. What’s more, the
number of those who have heard from a colleague at their own institution is
the same (six), as those who have heard from an overseas speaker at a
conference. Ten students answered under other and the sources listed –
teacher training courses, ELT for development projects, and language degree
programmes indicate that a solid and permanent source of information was
available as opposed to the ephemeral discourse of an overseas conference
speaker.
That action research, for these respondents, is more than just a
passing conference fashion is further borne out by the absence of scepticism
in their answers to the open-ended question ‘Please, write any other
comments or opinions you have about Action Research or about your
experiences with Action Research’ (Part C of the questionnaire). The
following comments illustrate this point:
For me, this is the more appropriate way to get real changes. It is
the result of an investigation in action, using real people and real
problems in the classroom. (Colombia)

It helps you to develop more. (Greece)

76
 ACTION RESEARCH AND EFL PRACTITIONERS

Action research is a very useful tool in the professional

development in the career and speciality of work. (The Gulf)

I personally feel that Action Research is an effective way of

analysing the problems that teachers may encounter in class.
(The Magreb)

100mm
Downloaded by [200.7.136.39] at 08:01 09 October 2017

Figure 1. Sources of information about action research.

Other Noteworthy Results [8]

This sample of teachers has ample access to professional development. To
the question ‘How often do you attend professional development activities?’
(Section A of the questionnaire) as many as 95 (42.2%) out of the 228 attend
some kind of professional development event 2–3 times a year, and 65
(28.9%) once a year (Table VII). On looking only at those respondents who
know about action research, access to professional development facilities
may have contributed to their knowledge. All 55 who know about action
research benefit from professional development with 48 attending
conferences regularly (20 once a year and 28 two or three times a year;
Figure 2). However, those who do not know about action research also have
regular access to professional development (also Figure 2). What’s more,

77
 Isobel Rainey

although Colombia, the country with the highest number of respondents to

know about action research (16 out of 30, Table I) has a high rate for
attendance at professional development events so also does Poland (Table
VII). Yet, Poland recorded zero knowledge of action research for the 28
teachers surveyed (Table I).

65mm

Figure 2. Professional development activities of those who do (Yes – chart on left) and
those who do not (No – chart on right) know about action research.
Downloaded by [200.7.136.39] at 08:01 09 October 2017

Country/region 2–3 times Once Once every Never

a year a year 2–3 years
China 12 7 4 6
Columbia 17 9 2 1
Greece 14 9 3 4
Japan 11 7 2 7
Magreb 14 4 3 4
Poland 12 9 5 2
Thailand 12 8 5 2
The Gulf 3 12 15
Missing system
= 03
Totals 95 (42.2%) 65 (28.9%) 39 (17.3%) 26 (11.6%)

Table VII. Attendance at professional development events.

Of special interest, however, is the fact that none of those respondents who
have heard of action research professed to never attending professional
development events, whereas 26 (15%) of those who do not know about
action research never benefit from professional development activities.
It seems safe to say, therefore, that teachers are more likely to have
heard about action research if they regularly attend seminars, conferences
and workshops, but that attendance at these events does not guarantee that
they will have heard of it.
Also worth noting are the results for the years of teaching experience.
As many as 25 (45.5%) of those who have heard of action research have

78
 ACTION RESEARCH AND EFL PRACTITIONERS

more than 12 years teaching experience. It is possible that these teachers

benefited from the ample information available about action research during
the initial wave of enthusiasm, which also occurred also roughly 12 years
ago, as discussed in the Introduction. In contrast, 126 (78.9.1%) of those
who have not heard of action research have less than 12 years experience. If
action research is no longer discussed as extensively at teacher development
events as it was 12 years ago, then this may explain why so many of the
teachers with fewer years of experience have not heard about it. On the
other hand, that the 55 teachers who know about action research have an
average of 12 years experience or more may simply indicate that teachers
with more experience are more resolute in their quest for professional
development opportunities. This, however, is not supported by some of the
research in this area. For example, Huberman (1993) found that ‘the general
level of investment – pedagogical, institutional and professional – falls
progressively over the course of the career’ (Huberman, 1993, p. 193), and
that enthusiasm for ‘innovation’ may rise considerably between 8 and 12
years, but declines rapidly thereafter, particularly in men. In the case of this
survey, 12 years or more was the only specification in the questionnaire.
Thus, it is impossible to check how many of these teachers had just reached
the 12-year watershed, and had therefore still got high levels of investment
and how many were far beyond it.
Downloaded by [200.7.136.39] at 08:01 09 October 2017

Synthesis of the Results of the Survey

Although three-quarters of the teachers surveyed had not heard of action
research, the responses to action research among those who have are in
general very positive. Clearly, the majority, including those who do not
actively practise action research, are convinced of its potential usefulness
for and relevance to them as classroom teachers. Some are also aware of
their needs with respect to its practice and of the scope, and limitations of
the type of action research in which they have been instructed. In this
respect, the following two quotes sum up their main concerns. A respondent
from the Magreb commented that ‘Training is very important to have good
quality research. Exchange of ideas and experiences with others is very
useful. Follow up to action research is very important’. A Colombian
respondent, on the other hand, was concerned with the need for research to
go beyond the classroom: ‘Looking at classrooms is very important ...
However, action research may limit the scope of research because it is very
specific within a particular context.’ As no questionnaire survey can
account, or even attempt to account for all the feelings, attitudes, positions
or opinions of human beings, short ‘interviews’ (email and telephone) were
organised with a few of the respondents, the complications of interviewing at
a distance making more interviews impossible. The next section deals with
these interviews. It begins, however, with some insights gained by the
author when carrying out a piece of previous, but relevant second order
action research. These insights highlight the need for researchers to

79
 Isobel Rainey

exercise extreme caution when delving into the practices of classroom

teachers, many of whom may work in insecure positions.

Interviews
Related Second Order Research
Reporting an experience she observed [9], when two groups of students took
the same postgraduate programme in consecutive years in Colombia, the
author (Rainey, 1996) [10] describes how the groups reacted very differently
to exactly the same action research course, which was a compulsory part of
the postgraduate programme. Group 1 was receptive and positive to the
course, Group 2 much less so. Reasons for Group 2’s disinclination are
mooted in the said article. Of interest to the present discussion is one of the
solutions proposed to the problem, i.e. to Group 2’s somewhat negative
reactions to the action research course. With a view to inspiring Group 2,
the previous year’s students, i.e. those from Group 1, were invited to come
to the action research course to describe research they had done since
completing their postgraduate programme the year before. It evolved,
however, that even those students who had expressed most enthusiasm for
action research, had not done any action research in the intervening year.
Second order research, as proposed by Elliott (1993, p. 177), was
considered appropriate in this case and took the form of Interviews [11] with
Downloaded by [200.7.136.39] at 08:01 09 October 2017

the three most enthusiastic students from Group 1. These revealed that,
while the students had been convinced of the importance of action research
during their postgraduate course, once back in the cut and thrust of
difficult teaching circumstances, their commitment had faltered for the
reasons summarised below.
Teacher 1, who taught in a remote, rural secondary school, said that action
research was the best course within the postgraduate programme. Action
research ‘is what my country needs’. During the course he had done several
short research projects and had greatly enjoyed sharing the outcomes of his
work with his colleagues on the course. Once the course had finished,
however, he had felt very isolated, and had not had the motivation to do
action research, although he still firmly believed in it as a way of improving
our understanding of the classroom.
Teacher 2, who was from a provincial capital city, said that he remembered
that in the literature they had read during the action research course, a
United Kingdom-based teacher had said something along the following lines.
‘The head gave me permission to attend a teacher training day so that I
could discuss my action research projects with teachers from other schools
teaching the same subject’. Teacher 2 pointed out that getting such a
concession from his ‘head’ would be impossible and that, while he did not
have a formal point of contact with other teachers doing similar things, he
was not inspired to do action research.

80
 ACTION RESEARCH AND EFL PRACTITIONERS

Teacher 3, who also worked in a provincial capital city, had a very different
reason for what for not doing action research in her school. She said that,
during the postgraduate course, she had enjoyed doing action research, as
she was able to share the outcomes and ideas with the other students and
the lecturer who taught the course. There had been a warm, supportive
atmosphere for the duration of the course and a frank, edifying discussion
of the action research projects. Back at school, however, the atmosphere
was very different. She could do action research within the confines of her
own classroom but for her that was not enough. She wanted to enlist the
support and collaboration of her colleagues. This, however, was out of the
question as ‘researching a problem in my classroom could be seen in my
school as a confession that I am not a very competent teacher’.
The insights from these interviews will be dealt with, together with those
from the interviews for the present survey, in the ‘Synthesis of the
Interviews’ below. Teacher 3’s situation, however, is of immediate relevance
in that it serves to remind us that difficult teaching conditions come in
many guises and, in researching other teachers’ practices, ethical issue
arise (Jarvis, 1999, p. 98). Thus, every effort must be made not to
disadvantage in any way those collaborating with the research. In an initial
trial run of the questionnaire for this survey, for example, the author and
one of the distributors agreed by mutual consent that, on this occasion,[12]
it would not be convenient for the distributor to participate in the main
Downloaded by [200.7.136.39] at 08:01 09 October 2017

survey. She had become embarrassed when she noticed that, ‘despite many
seminars and courses about action research in my country’ most of the
teachers reported that they were not doing it. For similar reasons and in
contrast to the survey outcomes, the interviewees below are not identified by
country. There are so few of them that such an identification might have
revealed their personal identities and resulted in a breach of confidentiality.

Interview for the Current Survey

Communication [13] was established, via the distributors, with four
teachers who completed the questionnaire, all of whom were not doing
action research. It was impossible to probe their specific questionnaires, as
these had been anonymous. The interviews were therefore simply concerned
with asking the interviewees to comment in as much detail as they could on
their reasons for not doing action research. They are identified as Teachers
4–7 in order not to confuse them with the Teachers 1–3 in ‘Related second
order research’.
Teacher 4 felt that, despite a heavy teaching commitment, she would
find time to do action research if the Ministry of Education inspectors who
visited her school regularly showed a re-active interest in the outcomes. In
this respect, she felt that ‘not just the positive but also the negative results
should be shared with the inspectors as negative results could provide the
inspectors with information about specific areas where I need their support’.
She mentioned, for example, that if she attempted to improve her teaching

81
 Isobel Rainey

of the listening skill, she would need more support in the form of tapes and
tape recorders.
Teacher 5 was tired of action research. She said ‘it made us have a
headache – serious and sometimes exhausting’. It had been a compulsory
and accredited part of a part-time postgraduate programme. Assessment
was on the basis of formal knowledge of action research and on the report of
an ongoing project participants did in their regular classes for the duration
of the postgraduate programme.
Teacher 6 said that she did not do action research because she did not
feel confident enough because ‘there were still a lot of things we need help
with – data analysis, for example’. Like Teacher 5 she had learnt about
action research from a compulsory accredited course.
Teacher 7 echoed the concerns of Teacher 4, claiming that he did not
see the point of doing action research while there was no communication or
coordination of this type of research with the education authorities.

Synthesis of the Interviews

Of the seven teachers interviewed in all, five express a need for some kind of
collaboration – either with colleagues at their own schools (Teacher 3),
colleagues from other schools (Teachers 1 + 2) or with representatives of the
education authorities (Teachers 4 and 7). Thus, the straining for
Downloaded by [200.7.136.39] at 08:01 09 October 2017

collaborative modes observed in the survey data (Hypothesis 2 above) are

reflected in these results. What’s more, the interviews reveal the need for
collaboration to involve other professionals in the field of education, for
example, Ministry of Education inspectors (Teacher 4), as well as fellow
teachers. This forging of closer links with other members of the education
community – inspectors, teacher trainers, traditional researchers – is in line
with Dewey (1929), who insisted that, through collegial relationships of this
nature, theory and practice could be reciprocal, and the deep disjunction
between creed and deed overcome (Lagemann, 1999, p. 374). The need for
school administrators to be informed about action research and the
implications for their concomitant cooperation is borne out in Teacher 2’s
interview, which endorses Stuart & Kunkye’s (1998) claim that ‘there must
be support for the teachers ...’ (Lagemann, 1999, p. 391), in this case
permission to miss classes in order to attend meetings with colleagues in
the course of their research endeavours. Teacher 6, on the other hand,
intimates that that support should extend to the actual techniques required
for the completion of an action research project. Teacher’s 5 rather dramatic
reaction to action research may have been the result of the kind of fatigue
that many students experience at the end of a long course of study –
especially a part-time course. The issue of whether action research should
be made a compulsory activity or compulsory component of a degree
programme, however, needs to be addressed in greater depth in the
literature. Wright (1992), for example, warned that if action research is
made compulsory ‘... teachers may sense that they are being asked to take

82
 ACTION RESEARCH AND EFL PRACTITIONERS

on yet more duties in addition to those which already burden them ...’
(Lagemann, 1999, p. 203).

Discussion and Recommendations

Dewey (1992) proposed that the study of teachers’ own practices is ‘a
profoundly important form of educational scholarship’ (Lagemann, 1999:
375), in as much as having ever increasing access to that scholarship would
prevent them from embracing ‘... science as a fetish with a life of its own’
(Fals Borda, 1991). It then directs them towards ‘a concept of science more
... pertinent to the vicissitudes of the common people’ (Fals Borda, 1991).
This study has shown that, among the practising EFL teachers in the
sample who know about it, there is a healthy respect for action research.
Although it was the professional self-development type of action research
with which they were most familiar, there is also an intuitive straining for
more collaborative forms of research, and for that collaboration to have the
kind of consequences Dewey envisioned, cf. Table III, Hypothesis 2,
‘Synthesis of the Survey’, and ‘Interviews’ with Teachers 4 and 7. While
convictions and enthusiasm of even those teachers who do not do action
research, cf. ‘Interviews’, is most encouraging, it would seem unwise for
action research facilitators to ignore some of the other outcomes of the
study. First, the number of teachers, a majority of whom have access to and
Downloaded by [200.7.136.39] at 08:01 09 October 2017

take advantage of regular professional development, who have not been

informed of action research is disconcertingly high. More research needs to
be done to check whether this was just a chance result or whether it
represents a true picture of practising EFL teachers’ knowledge of action
research. More second order action research is also required to find out
what happens to the records kept and reports written by those teachers who
write up their research, in the case of this survey a reassuring 85.5%
(27.3% always and 48.5% sometimes) claim to do so. Without the
dissemination of the research of practising teachers, it is virtually
impossible for ‘the kind of practical knowledge and expertise that some of
the successful teachers have developed through their experiences’
(Marcondes, 1999, p. 206) to inform educational reforms. As a result,
teachers will continue to ‘tend not to believe’ (Marcondes, 1999, p. 209) in
reforms and innovations precisely because they do not allow for the
teachers’ own voices. Another area of second order research is the issue of
the compulsory, accredited action research component of in-service and
postgraduate programme. To what extent is it desirable for action research
to be a single compulsory course, as it was in the case of the Colombian
teachers discussed under ‘Related Second Order Research’ and of Teacher 5
in ‘Interviews for this Survey’. On the one hand, informing teachers of action
research is highly desirable, but coercing them into doing it would seem out
of keeping with the spirit of action research. On the other hand, just
informing teachers and not involving them in the practice could have the
effect Wallace (1991) predicted of converting action research into an
academic discipline in its own right, which was not directly supportive of

83
 Isobel Rainey

professional education and development in terms of practice. (Wallace,

1991). In short, action research – that type of research which aims to
remove ‘the wedge between researcher and practitioner’ (Nunan, 1996, cited
in Bailey & Nunan, 1996, p. 42) – would ironically run the risk of making its
own contribution to that wedge.
While such second order research is being carried out, some
suggestions of a practical ilk are in order to help those teachers who are
active, but not disseminating the outcomes of their research and those
teachers who embrace the principles of action research but are not active.
First, whether the courses where the teachers are informed of action
research are compulsory or not, the potential role of collaborative action
research in reform should be given just as much attention as the
professional self-development type. Ensuring that bibliographies for such
courses include not just references for collaborative practices in general but
for collaborative practices carried out in circumstances similar to those of
the students on the course is paramount. Kerfoot (1993) and Thorne &
Qiang (1996) would make inspirational reading, for example, for many
active or potential action researchers who teach EFL in difficult
circumstances. Supporting collaborative action can also be achieved with a
minimum of inconvenience in terms of teachers’ time. For example, the
organisers of national or regional TESOL conferences could, as SPELT [14]
has recently done, leave a space during the conference for active researchers
Downloaded by [200.7.136.39] at 08:01 09 October 2017

to share and consult with one another and with conference speakers, the
outcomes of their research. In this way, action researchers do not have to
find the time to attend special meetings. What’s more, they are assured of
sentient, supportive and regular feedback for all aspects of their work,
including how to write up their reports, and this could have a snowball
effect on the number of teachers who get involved in action research. Once
EFL action researchers have gained confidence in their own abilities to do
and report their research activities, organisers of national and regional
conferences could then have conferences with an action research theme,
where teachers share their reports with larger audiences. If the presence of
representatives from regional or national Ministries of Education can be
secured at these conferences, then the seeds of the bottom-up process in
curriculum and other related reforms have been sown. If such a presence is
not possible, papers resulting from such conferences, or special issues of
professional journals with Action Research reports [15] can be delivered to
the authorities for their consideration. If action research is made a
compulsory course on a postgraduate programme, it might be wise to give
students a choice in how they are assessed. Thus, assessment could be on
the basis either of a combination of a short action research project and a
review of the literature or of a longer project for the duration of the course.
Teacher 5 in this study would clearly have been happier with the former.
Such courses could also be used as sounding boards for action researchers
in the region. In this respect, the idea of inviting back the teachers from

84
 ACTION RESEARCH AND EFL PRACTITIONERS

Group 1 to discuss their research with a new group of students (Group 2) in

the ‘Related Second Order Research’ reported above was a good one. Had
the most enthusiastic teachers from Group 1 known that they were not
going to be ‘isolated’ and were going to have an opportunity to share their
research with these colleagues, this author firmly believes that they would
in fact have done action research in the intervening year.
The road to improving any field of education through change that has
been inspired by classroom practices is no doubt long and arduous. It may
be for this reason that, as yet, there is not a lot of evidence that, with
respect to EFL, significant progress along that road is being made. Yet, in
terms of those teachers in this survey who know about action research,
there is clearly a conviction that, given the right conditions for research,
they could and would want to be instrumental in that change. It is hoped
that the outcomes of this research will provide action research facilitators in
the field of TESOL with the impetus to do the second order research
suggested and that the recommendations will make a small, but significant
contribution to facilitating the participation of more EFL practitioners in
action research. Such increased participation would, in turn, ensure that
developments and reform in this sphere of TESOL are not dictated from
above or from afar, but are the outcomes of ‘collaborative equal
relationships of collegiality’ (Hyatt & Beigy, 1999, p. 39) among teachers,
Downloaded by [200.7.136.39] at 08:01 09 October 2017

administrators, policy makers and traditional researchers.

Acknowledgements
The author wishes to thank the following distributors for their enthusiastic
and efficient collaboration, and their unswerving support: Yi Yong, through
the mediation of Regina Jonker (China); Jose Cardenas and Gillian Moss
(Colombia); Kate Wakeman (Greece); Hitoshi Mukai and Greville Field
(Japan); Nadia Alaoui (Morocco); John Whitehead (Poland); Abdul Moniem
M. Hussien (Qatar); Jamil Bellakhil (Tunisia); Abdul Aziz Mujahed (Saudi
Arabia); Sujitra Pathumlungk, through the mediation of Marc Bowman, and
Philip Mathias (Thailand).
The assistance of Dr Glenn Fulcher, Director, and Anne Irving,
Associate Lecturer, both of the English Language Institute at the University
of Surrey, with the SPSS was invaluable and much appreciated, as were the
comments of the reviewers on the first draft of this article.

Correspondence
Isobel Rainey, School of Language and International Studies, University of
Surrey, Guildford GU2 5XH, United Kingdom (i.rainey@surrey.ac.uk).

85
 Isobel Rainey

Notes
[1] EFL is used throughout this article as this was the sphere the study focused
on but much of what is said could also apply to certain English as a Second
Language (ESL) contexts.
[2] Teachers Develop Teachers’ Research 4th International Conference, 2–4
September, Leuven, Belgium.
[3] Copy of the questionnaire available on request from the author.
[4] The frequency tables from which the data in this section have been
taken/calculated can be found in Appendix 1.
[5] It is worth emphasising that the teachers surveyed in these programmes were
teaching EFL and not theoretical subjects.
[6] These ‘vague’ terms were used deliberately as researching teachers’ practices
in specific detail can disadvantage the teachers if they work in ‘sensitive’
circumstances, cf. ‘Interviews’.
[7] Only reasons for not doing action research are reported here, as these are
more relevant to the present discussion than the reasons for doing it.
[8] Unless otherwise stated, these results refer once again to the whole sample
(228) and not just to those who have heard of action research.
[9] The author had been invited to observe the whole PG programme; she was not
the lecturer for the AR course.
Downloaded by [200.7.136.39] at 08:01 09 October 2017

[10] Paper available on request.

[11] Carried out after the article was written and read at TESOL.
[12] This distributor is, however, keen to cooperate with future research that
concentrates on those teachers who are doing and writing up their research.
[13] Two email and two telephone interviews; each interviewee was from a different
country.
[14] Society of Pakistan Teachers of English.
[15] Japanese Association of Language Teachers (JALT) is in the process of
bringing out such an issue.

References
Allwright, D. (1991) Exploratory Practice, Professional Development, and the Role of a
Teachers’ Association, paper read to the Cuban Group of English Language
Specialists, April, Havana, Cuba.
Bailey, M. & Nunan, D. (Eds)(1996) Voices from the Language Classroom. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Beasley, R. & Riordan, L. (1981) The Classroom Teacher as a Researcher, English in
Australia, 55, pp. 36–41.
Bell, J. & Gower, R. (1998) Writing Course Materials for the World: a great
compromise, in B. Tomlinson (Ed.) Materials Development in Language Teaching.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

86
 ACTION RESEARCH AND EFL PRACTITIONERS

Burns, A. (1999) Collaborative Action Research for English Language Teachers.

Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Carr, W. & Kemmis, S. (1986) Becoming Critical: knowing through action research.
Geelong: Deakin University.
Cohen, L. & Manion, L. (1994) Research Methods in Education, 4th edn. London:
Croom Helm.
Crawford-Lange, L. M. (1982) Curricular Alternatives for Second-language Learning,
in T. V. Higgs (Ed.) Curriculum Competence and the Foreign Language Teacher.
Skokie: National Textbook Company.
Crookes, G. (1993) Action Research for Second Language Teachers: going beyond
teacher research, Applied Linguistics, 14, pp. 130–144.
Dewey, J. (1929) The Sources of a Science of Education. New York: Liveright.
Elliott, J. (1993) Reconstructing Teacher Education. London: Falmer Press.
Elliott, J. (1993) Academic Action Research: the training workshop as an experiment
with an ideological deconstruction, in J. Elliott (Ed.) Reconstructing Teacher
Education. London: Falmer Press.
Ericson, D. P. (1986) On Critical Theory and Educational Practice, in K. A. Sirotnik &
J. Oakes (Eds) Critical Perspectives on the Organisation of Schools. Boston:
Kliwer-Nijhoff.
Fals Borda, O. (1991) Participatory Action Research in Colombia: some personal
feelings, in R. McTaggart (Ed.) Action Research: a short modern history. Geelong:
Downloaded by [200.7.136.39] at 08:01 09 October 2017

Deakin University Press.

Farrell, T. (1998) Reflective Teaching: the principles and practices, English Teaching
Forum, 36(4), pp. 10–17.
Freire, P. (1970) Pedagogy of the Oppressed. New York: Seabury.
Hasley, A. H. (Ed.) (1972) Educational Priority: Volume 1: E.A.P. problems and policies.
London: HMSO.
Huberman, M. (1993) The Lives of Teachers. London: Cassell.
Hyatt, D. & Beigy, A. (1999) Making the Most of the Unknown Language Experience:
pathways for reflective teacher development, Journal of Education for Teaching:
international research and pedagogy, 25, pp. 31–40.
Jarvis, P. (1999) The Practitioner-Researcher. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers.
Kerfoot, C. (1993) Participatory Education in a South African Context: contradictions
and challenges, TESOL Quarterly, 27, pp. 431–448.
Krona, S. (1988) Action Research in Teaching Composition, English Language
Teaching FORUM, 26(1), pp. 43–45.
Lagemann, E. C. (1999) Whither Schools of Education? Whither Education Research?
Journal of Teacher Education, 50, pp. 373–376.
Lewin, K. (1946) Action Research and Minority Problems, Journal of Social Issues, 2,
pp. 34–46.
Marcondes, M. I. (1999) Teacher Education in Brazil, Journal of Education for
Teaching, 25, pp. 203–213.
Murray, N. (1998) Comment: a conundrum for language teaching, English Language
Teaching Journal, 52(2), pp. 14–15.

87
 Isobel Rainey
Naidu, B., Neeraja, K., Ramani, E., Shivakumar, J. & Viswanatha, V. (1992)
Researching Heterogeneity: an account of teacher-initiated research into large
classes, English Language Teaching Journal, 46, pp. 252–263.
Nunan, D. (1989) Understanding Language Classrooms: a guide for teacher initiated
action. Hemel Hempstead: Prentice Hall.
Nunan, D. (1992) Research Methods in Language Learning. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Rainey, I. (1996) Grassroots Action Research: what can and cannot be done, paper
presented at TESOL, Chicago, 27 March.
Richards, J. C. (1994) Reflective Teaching in Second Language Classrooms.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Rubdy, R. (1997) Review of K. Bailey and D. Nunan (Eds) Voices from the Language
Classroom: qualitative research in second language, Education CUP, Applied
Linguistics, 19, pp. 272–292.
Sheen, R. (1994) A Critical Analysis of the Advocacy of the Task-based Syllabus,
TESOL Quarterly, 28(1), pp. 127–151.
Stenhouse, L. (1975) An Introduction to Curriculum Research and Development.
London: Heinemann.
Stern, H. H. (1983) Fundamental Concepts of Language Teaching. Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
Thorne, C. & Qiang, W. (1996) Action Research in Language Education, English
Downloaded by [200.7.136.39] at 08:01 09 October 2017

Language Teaching Journal, 50, pp. 254–261.

Wallace, M. J. (1991) Training Foreign Language Teachers: a reflective approach.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Wallace, M. J. (1998) Action Research for Language Teachers. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
White, R. (1988) The ELT Curriculum: design, innovation and management. Oxford:
Basil Blackwell.
Wright, T. (1992) L2 Classroom Research and L2 Teacher Education: towards a
collaborative approach, in J. Flowerdew, M. Brock & S. Hsia (Eds) Perspectives in
Second Language Acquisition. Hong Kong: City Polytechnic of Hong Kong.

88
 ACTION RESEARCH AND EFL PRACTITIONERS

APPENDIX 1

Statistics
Hourswk Places Uni HighS Langinst
Valid 221 225 228 228 228
Missing 7 3 0 0 0

Hourswk
Frequency % Valid Cumulative
% %
Valid 12–15 66 28.9 29.9 29.9
16–20 84 36.8 38.0 67.9
21–25 32 14.0 14.5 82.4
26–30 23 10.1 10.4 92.8
31–40 9 3.9 4.1 96.8
40+ 7 3.1 3.2 100.0
Total 221 96.9 100.0
Missing System 7 3.1
Total 228 100.0

Places
Frequency % Valid Cumulative
Downloaded by [200.7.136.39] at 08:01 09 October 2017

% %
Valid One 163 71.5 72.4 72.4
Two 42 18.4 18.7 91.1
Three 20 8.8 8.9 100
Total 225 98.7 100.0
Missing System 3 1.3
Total 228 100.0

Uni
Frequency % Valid Cumulative
% %
Valid Yes 76 33.3 33.3 33.3
No 152 66.7 66.7 100.0
Total 228 100.0 100.0

HighS
Frequency % Valid % Cumulative
%
Valid Yes 84 36.8 36.8 36.8
No 144 63.2 63.2 100.0
Total 228 100.0 100.0

89
 Isobel Rainey

Langinst
Frequency % Valid Cumulative
% %
Valid Yes 45 19.7 19.7 19.7
No 183 80.3 80.3 100.0
Total 228 100.0 100.0

APPENDIX 2

Statistics
Colmyins Colotins Alone Othmode
Valid 32 32 32 32
Missing 196 196 196 196

Colmyins
Frequency % Valid Cumulative
% %
Valid Yes 12 5.3 37.5 37.5
No 20 8.8 62.5 100.0
Total 32 14.0 100.0
Downloaded by [200.7.136.39] at 08:01 09 October 2017

Missing System 196 86.0

Total 228 100.0

Colotins
Frequency % Valid Cumulative
% %
Valid Yes 4 1.8 12.5 12.5
No 28 12.3 87.5 100.0
Total 32 14.0 100.0
Missing System 196 86.0
Total 228 100.0

Alone
Frequency % Valid Cumulative
% %
Valid Yes 17 7.5 53.1 53.1
No 15 6.6 46.9 100.0
Total 32 14.0 100.0
Missing System 196 86.0
Total 228 100.0

90
 ACTION RESEARCH AND EFL PRACTITIONERS

Othmode
Frequency % Valid Cumulative
% %
Valid Yes 1 .4 3.1 3.1
No 31 13.6 96.9 100.0
Total 32 14.0 100.0
Missing System 196 86.0
Total 228 100.0
Downloaded by [200.7.136.39] at 08:01 09 October 2017

91