crookes 1993

8/9/2019 Crookes 1993

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/crookes-1993 1/8

GRAHA.\1 CROOKES

131

Action

Research

forSecond

Language

Teachers:

Going Beyond

Teacher Research

GRAHAM CROOKES

Universil of awaii

In this paper I outline the historyo action research and distinguish between

twokinds

o

actionresearch both

o

considerableimportanceand utility to the

second language SL field. I then discuss action research

reports

which

m y

have beena sourceo some concerns expressed as to the quality o actton

research Although action research reportsmay takeforms differentfrom those

o

orthodox research I suggestthatthey are

o

interestandpotentialbenefitto

both the regular SL teacherand theprofessionas a whole

1. I: ITRODVCrION

•

Although action research has a long history, it is a term which has onlyquite

recently becomeknown and used inESL.

isapparently, therefore. something

new ,

and

predictably has already becomea buzzword withinthe fieldof second

language studies. There

are

good reasons for being.sceptical of anything the

ESL

field ta ke s up a nd fin ds fa sh io na ble , and

this

ha s a lr ea dy led to the

suspicion in some quarters that action r e s e r ~ h implies a r e s e r ~ h

methodolozv which willlead to work of

poor

quality or work which

undesir

abl e in other ways for example, J ar vi s 1991; ct. Brumfit and Mitchell

1989;

Usher

and

Brvantl989;

Winter 1989). isthe purpose ofthe present paper to

clarify the nature of action research, and therebydispel this suspicion. Accord

ingly:I first outline the history of action research, and distinguishbetween two

kinds of action research,

both

of considerable importance and utility

to

the SL

field. I

comment

briefly

on

the written

products

of action research. which

are

part of the source of the suspicions concerningquality, and argue that. while

the

forms of action research reports

are

different from thoseof orthodox research,

they are ofinterestand potentialbenefit to

both

the regular SL teacher

and

the

profession as a whole.

2. DEFlNtTlONS,TWO BASIC CO:-CEPTIONS;HISTORY

There are varying understandings of the term action research Kelly 1985;

Chesler 1990).

At

the very least, it carries a general implication that teachers

willbe involved in a research activity.

An

important difference between

acnon

research and other research done b y t ea ch er s is that in th e latter instance

teachers might well be doing research on issues and questions which are.those

considered most important by the established community of scholars

the

relevant field i.e. theory-driven research. However, m acnon

r e s e r ~ h It IS

accepted that

research

questions should emerge from a

teacher

s

own

immediate concernsandproblems.

pplied l.inguistics, Vol. 14.No © OxfordUniversityPress 19IJ3

H av in g made this d istinc tion , let us reco gnize a c ore a re a for a cti on

research-teachers

doing research Ontheir

own

teaching and the learning of

t heir own s tudent s. Nunan 1990: 63) cit es Kem mi s and M cTaggart 1982) :

action

research

is

trying

outideas practiceas ameansofimprovement andas

a means of increasing knowledge about the curriculum, teaching, and learning .

Van Lier

1988) cites Cohen

and

M ani on 1985: 174), who def ine act ion

research as small-scale intervention in the functioning of the real world

and

a

close examination of the effects of such intervention .

These definitions subsume at least two distinguishable trends. The first is an

older. relativelv conservative line, which finds action research. equivalent to

r e s e ~ h

done

bv

a teacher-researcher , The second is a

n w r

more progres

sive line

where

the term actionresearch is used to refer to aspectsof critical

educati on practi ce. that i s.

education

an d e du ca ti on al r es ea rc h which is

committed to emancipating individuals from the domination of unexamined

assumptions embodiedin

the status quo ct

Ericson 1986: 208). The olderline

isnominally value-free but inpractice is

not -the

newer line isexplicitlyvalue

laden.

Both

kinds are important,

bu t

whether

our

field understands or appreci

ates them equallyis questionable see Section 3).

I have said that action research is

notjruly

new. This reallyapplies to the older

conception just

mentioned.

Thus defined, actionresearch seemsnomorethan

a description of what good teachers might be expected to do in th e c ourse o f

t hei r t eaching and thinki ng, and t hus whil e prais ewor thy, s eems har dl y

innovative. Whether

such

activities have in fact

been

a standard partof teaching

is questionable, however. Olson 1990 r efe rs to US t ea ch er s e nga ging in

curriculum design and related classroom research during the first two decades

of this century forexample, Lowry 1908 but this appears tohave been excep

tional. During the post-war period,

with

extensive federal funding, US educa

tio na l re se arc h followed th e p ra ct ic e of i nd us tr y and a do pt ed a n R a nd D

m od el C ar r a nd Kemmis 1 98 6) , w hich a cc ep te d tha t r es ea rc he rs wou ld

research and teachers would te ach . and the twain would only meet on

curriculumprojects, in which

the

researchers would tellthe teacherswhatto do.

This was certainly the case.for example, inthe Hawaii English Project Brandon

1982; Rodgers and Richards n.d.), which ran through the 1970s.A contrasting

but equally unsatisfactory situation is claimed to have existed inBritain during

this period; according to Elliott

1987;

162):

inthe

United Kingdom

during thelate19605

and early 19705 curricula were being

misusedbv teachers whoadaptedthem to matchtheirtraditional pe gogy the

problem

w s

exacerbated

by

theprevailing ideologyof

teacher

autonomy which gave

developerslittle control overtheuse of theirproducts.

Some

interest

inactionresearch in mainstream educationwas

apparent during

t he 1950s and 1960s Cor ey 1953; W ann 1953), and it was probabl y at this

time that itfirstbecame a possibility in SL work Lane 1962), but examples of

actual practice seem to have been rare until recently. when there has been

8/9/2019 Crookes 1993


132

ACTIONRESEARCH FOR SECOND LA <Gl:AGETEACHERS

GRAHAM CROOKES

133

renewed interes t and a greater amount of such research. This has

emerged

earliestin the UK(notably through the effortsof Stenhouse,for example,

1975,

and cf, Nixon 1981),

Europe,

and Australia, and onlyvery lately in the US

cf

Sanford 1981;Kemmis and McTaggart 1988; Cochran-Smith and Lytle

1990;

Holly 1991). Though not new, then, this kind of action research is at least re-

newed, and isinitselfdesirable, inthat the morepeople there are doing research

onrelevant

matters

thebetter.

3.

AcnON

RESEARCHOF THE FIRST

xrxo

The straightforward teacher-researcher aspectof

action research

seemsquite

attractive to educational establishments. The US Departmentof Education has

solicited research of this sort, and believes that th e development of a local

capacity for inquiry and problem-solving ishighly desirable inimproving state

education (Olson 1990: I). Considerable efforts have been expended on

encouraging teacher-researcher and university-school partnerships (for

example, Sirotnik and

Goodlad

1988). Teacher-researchers are figures

praised

in many research articles who model professional behavior through seizing

authori ty for their subject matter and act ivit ies (Bullock 1987: 23).

Their

efforts are supposed to foster connections between universities as research

institutions) and schools, and are also expected to integrate the functions

of

teacher

and

researcher

by

ensuring that teachers

do

research

or collaborate

actively with researchers.This, itis hoped,willcontributeto the improvement

of

the teaching profess ional and the uti lization of research. 1t is this teacher

research version of action research which has surfaced in the literature of SL

research and pedagogy (for example, Florio and Walsh 1981: Gebhard,Gaitan.

and Oprandy 1987; Long 1989; Nunan 1989a. 1989b, 1990; Brindley

1990;

Allwright and Bailey 1991). As Cochran-Smith and Lytle (1990) note, how-

ever, much of this body of work is actually published singly by univers ity

researchers and

is

intended for academic audiences ,

There is no major methodological distinction to be made between regular

research

andthemore conservative line

in

action

research. Allthe

normal

tools

of social scienceor educational

research

canbe brought to

bear

to the extent

that the teacher doing action research is familiar with them

or

wishes to use

them.

In

pract ice, techniques which lend themselves to use in small-scale

investigations. and those which can capitalize upon the investigator s familiarity

and participation in the situation investigated are particularly

appropriate

(Winter

1989).

There must be some problem or quest ion which acts as

the

impetus to the work,

and

then after that, various regular steps can be taken:

observation of one s students or one sown teaching. some

form

of datacollec-

tion relevantto the researchquestion.

or

(to take a more qualitativeperspective)

the revision or development of the initial research question; finally followed by

some attempt to uti lize the data to answer the quest ion and thereby solve the

problem.

4.

AcnON

RESEARCH OFTHE SECOND KIND

I u nowto themoreradical conception of action research whichisparticu

larly associated i th the work of Carr and Kemmis (for example, 1986) and

Whitehead (for example, Whitehead and Lomax 1987), and which has gone

almostwithout representation in SL discussionsof this topic.Beforeattempting

to defineit,I i ll explain why it isimportantand needed,

Research into social institutions, such as schools,has been heavily influenced

by the Received View in philosophy of science (now discredited;

r

Crookes

1992), which among other things presented science as value-free and objective.

Thecountersideto

this

is that most ofthescientific community have seen

values

asnot

something

worthy of investigation.In thecontext of

educational research

the result has been to perceive schools as neutral, non-political places that go

about the businessof educating childrenas wellas they can.We assume they are

eager for new practices that willenable them to do better (Sirotnik and Oakes

1986: 5). There has been little investigation of the values that schools actually

embody,and there has been a general attempt to use research simply to enable

schools betterto achieve their unquestioned goals.

is

is regrettable. because thereis an inherent contradiction between the

processof educationand the

needs

of the institutions withinwhich educationis

supposed

to happen.This can be seen inthe differing goals ofthosewhose main

purpose

in an educational institution is to support and main ta in it (the

administrators)as opposed to those who delivereducation itself(the teachers).

f

this were not the case,

one

hundred years of reform efforts in American

educat ion would not have

been

successfully resisted, and classrooms and

lessons would not still be almost the same as they were many decades ago (but

they are--ct. Goodlad 1984; Cohen 1988; Cuban 1988). The fact of the matter

is thatto

exist institutions

must

obtain

resources. distribute rewards.

and

resist

encroachment from other competi tive inst itu tions in the social sphere

(Mcintyre 1981),while at the same time delivering education, The character

istics of a social institution which has preserved itselfas longas schools have

include self-preservation mechanisms and structures which enable i t to

successfully obtain resources and distribute rewards to those that support it.

They also act to preserve it from internal destabilization (which includes the

process of change itself) and from external competition. Such mechanisms are

often inintical to educat ion which might meet a society s highest goals , and

create a literate, culturally enlightened, critically thinking citizenry (Sirotnik

and Oakes , 1986: 4), (Cons ider the point that both British and American

societies, for example, are

supposed

to be democracies , yet within them the

primary institution socializing future citizens is extremely undemocratic, at all

levels.j Unless teachers are aware of this fact, and continually investigate the

extent to which their purposes are being subverted and their professional values

ignored, they may eventually be prevented from actually educating. Teachers

research into the degree to which they are attaining their goals or into the

problems they are facing in doing so (that is, action research) istherefore a s n

8/9/2019 Crookes 1993


those

engaged

in this

reflective process

[must]

attempt

to bracket

their

experience-

that is t y attempt to stand outside their experienceand

attend

toit nsuchaway that

they movebeyond what appear tobe

common-sense

interpretations

of what things

mean.

n

thisway they are

able

to

approach setting aside their ordinary assumptions

about

their

situations

and attain aheightened consciousness and clarified

understand

ing

about

therange of

meanings

that

participants attach

to school

events. (Sirotnik

and

Oakes 1986; 35)

When a cycle of investigation is concluded, the results must

be

com

municated-first,

to

those who engaged in the researchitself, and also to other

teachers and interested parties. Since the intent of the report (as well as the

reflection

an d

inquiry) is to lead to immediate action, they must be com

municated to teachers in forms they can immediately utilize. This leads to a

major area in

which progressive

action researchmay dispute standard research

practice-how the findings of investigations are communicated to teachers.

Through coexistingwith regular research reports, action research reports may

influence and benefitte achers accessto more established report formats.

S. THE UTIt.lZATIONOF RESEARCHANDACTION RESEARCH

There isa continuing widespreaddisposition among teachers generally (not just

those inSL education) that conventional research findings (at least as normally

presented) are insufficientlyrelevant to theirday-to-day problems(for example,

Beasley and Riordan 1981; Carr and Kemmis 1986; Bullock 1987; Eykyn

1987; Miranda 1988; McDonough and Mcfronough 1990; and

t

Armstrong

1980; Sanford 1981; Neubert and Binko 1987; Tyler 1988; Orem 1990;

Allwright

and

Bailey 1991). In this, teachers are supported by researchers

critical from various standpoints ofthe body of knowledge generated bveduca

tional research thus far (for example, Armstrong 1980; Haberman

and

Sikula

1991). There are various reasons for this. (1) can legitimately be recognized

that because oftopicsaddressed or the preliminary nature ofmany potentially

relevant lines ofwork,some work in regular educationand SL-specific research

really isirrelevant. at least in the short run (Lightbown 1985).(2)Most research

reports are specifically not targeted to individuals day-to-day problems. As

Shavelson (1988: 5)has observed,ifa teacherbelieves that education research

should direct ly and immediately apply to a par ticular issue, problem, or

decision that she or he faces, the probability that any single study

or

series of

studies could possibly meet these conditions must be quite close to

zero

unless the teacher takes action him/herself,

of

course. (3) Teachers have been

ledto believe that if oneknew what the right theory (i.e.bodyofknowledge) was,

one could Simplyapply it to practice

and

all problems of practice would be

solved. But, in fact. practical judgments are alwavs made under conditions of

bounded rationality (Simon 1957, 1958; see discussion in

Emmel

1966;

Hartnet t and Naish 1976. and ct Torbert 1981). Under these conditions,

theoretical

knOWledge

is often incomplete

and

practice situations never fully

understood practice isalways un r t rmin bytheory(Usher

and

Bryant

1989; 74) . Theory will be to varying degrees inapplicable in this sense,

134 ACTIONRESEARCHFORSECOND LA. Gt :AGETEACHERS

qu n ll for the del ivery of education (as opposed to, for example, child

minding, or what some have called schooling ) by schools

to

their students.

n this lineof thought, action research

provides a

means

bywhich

distorted

self-understandings may

be

overcome by

teachers

analyzing

theway their ownpractices and

understandings

are

shaped

bybroader ideo-

logical conditions [and] .. by linking reflection to

action.

offersteachers andothersa

wayof

becomingaware

ofhowthoseaspects ofthe

social

order

which

frustrate

rational

change may beovercome (Carrand

Kemmis 1986;

179-80)

Carr andKemmis are

not

satisfiedwith a conceptionof action research inwhich

teachers simplyidentify a problem and solve it-they wish to see the develop

ment ofa cyclicalprogramof reform, whose results are reflectedon

and

further

refined and developed in collaborative investigative communities The estab

lishment of a widening circ le of self-reflective communities of act ion

researchers .. . foreshadows

an d

engenders a different form of social organiza

tion (Carr and Kemmis 1986; 185). This conception of the school as a com

munityof researchersis also to be found much earlier in Schaefer (1967)as well

as, from a lesscritical perspective, the teacher center movement (for example,

Shostak 1987). It isan important componentin distinguishing thissecond kind

of action research from

that

discussed

earlier-compare

Gore and Zeichner

(1991: 123). who observe:

what we have most often seen in the US act ion research literature is a purely

individualist version of actionresearch which

largely

ignores thesocial conditionsof

schooling and society.

The techniques involved in this kind of action research willnot necessarily be

distinguishable from the full range of educational research techniques (Myers

1985) but the range of techniques to be chosen from may be narrowed by the

social organization involved in doing action research. and its reflective

COllaborative,and dialogic nature.In particular,it should be understood

that

the

objective ofthis kind of action research islocally-valid understandings of prob

lems in teaching and learning,

not

necessarily findings of maximal generality.

Thismeans that on the one hand, large databases.techniquesfor their reduction

and analysis, and steps which allo;; the replicability of results across many

different environments are less needed. On the other hand, techniques which

capitalize on the actors

an d

investigators deep familiaritywith the situationare

appropriate. n addition, a central concept of critical theory isunconstrained

dialogue which permits rational analysis

and

conceptual development. This

should take place through individual

teachers

reflection and communication

withtheir co-investigators, so the concepts used and the forms bywhich results

arecommunicated mustreflect

this,

ctionresearch. therefore,muststartwit

the ideas and conceptsof teachers,but it

must

be recognized that these are quite

likelyto embody theunexamined assumptionsof theschoolculturewhichplaya

role in causing many of the problems teachers face

ialse

consciousness).

Consequently, these must be developed through reflection and enquiry, and

,

t

GRAHAMCROOKES

13S

8/9/2019 Crookes 1993


136

ACTION RESEARCH FOR SECO:<DLA. GUAGETEACHERS

GRAHAMCROOKES 137

precisely becauseof the unknowable dimension of practice on a moment-to

moment basis. (4)Many research reports, givenin both oral

and

written form,

use unfamiliarconcepts

an d

a rhetoricalformatwhichservesthe purposes of

th e

community of mainstream researchers, rather than of teachers (Mohr 1987;

Kidder

1991);

a major concern of those using this format is to present state

ments ina standard form, whose use is in:ended to facilitatethe replicability of

studies and their critical assessment

Thedesires that teachers havefor clarity and relevance may leadnon-action

researchers to respond by moving away from accompanying prescriptions for

practicewith a detailed accounting of the bases ofsuch prescriptions (And t

also Shavelson 1988: 9 on the greater risks that must be taken to bring

research to

bear

on the information needs of policy-makers and practitioners )

This sort ofresponse to the understandable pressures from teachersand policy

makers actually undermines the relationship between teachers and research.

Thereare defensible reasons whyresearch is reported theway

it

is ut since

those reasons do notobtainunderall circumstances.

it

is possible to argue for

alternative report and knowledge transmission formats, in the followingway.

The stronger the claims for general applicability that a study makes and the

more damage such claims, if wrong, could do, the greater the demand that

should be made for reliability, validity, and trustworthiness ct LeCompte

and

Goetz 1982;Mishler 1990) of the study. whichin tum can be obtained through

requiring full adherence to scientific practice in both the carrying out

and

reporting of the study Th e less strong suchclaims. the lessneed to conform to

the valuesimplicit in the (currently) standard rhetoric of science (not a value

free rhetoric: Schuster and Yeo 1986: Bazerman 1987; Nelson. McGill, and

McCloskey 1987). As Argyris and Schon (1991: 85) say: from the action

researcher s perspective. the challenge

is

to define and meet s tandards of

appropriate

rigor

without

sacrificing relevance. Since

action research

starts

with the immediate needsof a teacher or a group ofteachers, and

is

carried

out

by these individuals with their limited time and resources, their reports (without

which their actions cannot be considered research Ebbutt 1985) should

reflect such realities and limitations. They also reflect the expository predisposi

tionsof writer and

targeted audience:

they may bemore

discursive.

subjective,

and

anecdotal or discoursal (by orthodox standards). (See, for example,

Reasonand Rowan 1981; Ray 1987;Whitehead and Lomax 1987.)As Winter

(1989: 73-4)

states:

since our writing emerges from a different set of relationships collaborative and

action-oriented.

rather

than

authoritative and

observation-oriented the format of our

writing

shouldalso bedifferent. .. . certain stylistic features ofacadernic writing could

alsobe seenas inappropriate for

action research

reports. i.e.those.

. .

whichseem to

express

the expertrole by suggesting a

withdrawal

from

personal involvement.

anda

sustained

abstraction

fromconcrete

detail.

t is such teacher-oriented reports, when presented beyond the confines of

their

intended

application or

dissemination.

which can cause the concern

expressed by various authorities cited at the outset of this paper. The reports

are, after all, intended for a particular audience: fellow action researchers

involved

n

the work reported; the researcher him/herself,

in

that the reporting

process is part of the reflection involved in changing practice; and fellow

teachers

n

similar suuanons (Wmter

1989).

An acnon research report, there

fore, should not beread as

if

unsuccessfully targeted for an academic journal

ct

Cochran-Smith andLytle 1990). Its contents should, however, be disseminated

(as research is not research unless

communicated Stem

1983). A range of

alternatives to the academic Journal article exist (for example, conference

presentation,teacher-centerposter),most ofwhich are probablymore effective

in disseminating the information contained in such a report. Investigations of

the utilization of research findings make it clear that findings only presented in

academic journalsstand littlechanceof being utilized. Other means ofinforma

tion dissemination must be adopted, inwhich the personal element isinvolved,

either

n

dissemination alone (popham 1991; cf. linkingsystems , Rogers 1986;

teacher researchlinkers ,Billups andRauth 1987), or throughinstitutionalizing

action

research

so as to

change

school

staffs

into

communities

of

action

researchers

ct

Bennett andDesforges 1985).

6. SUMMARY

I have tried tooutline here thedifferences between regular research, onekind of

action research perhaps better called teacher research, and a second kind of

action research which most truly warrants that name. All are important and

useful; but it isthe radical wingof action research whichis least understood and

conducted, and which I have highlighted here. t deserves our support for the

.following reasons: (1) itsresults are actually as relevant to the immediate needs

and problems of teachers as any research can be; (2) itsupports the process of

teacher reflection. which is vital for educational renewal and professional

growth; (3)engaginginaction research mayfacilitate teachersdoing otherkinds

of researchand using the results ofsuch research; and (4) because ofitsbasisin

critical theory, it faces up to the unquestioned values embodied in educational

institutions which regularly threaten to cut the ground from under teachers,

eprofessionalizing them and preventing the delivery of true education.

So long as research is only presented as something that other people not

teachers-do, andso long as it seems to teachers that research reports must

necessarilybe written ina languagethey do

not

read or speak. wewillbe accom

modating the exploitativepressures of the institutions teacherswork in.Action

against such pressurescan take many forms. Th e conducting of action research

as a means of critical reflection on teaching and on the sociopolitical context in

which teachers find themselves has the potential to be a major componentin the

continuing struggle to improve SL teaching.

Revisedversion received ctober 992

8/9/2019 Crookes 1993


ACf10S RESEARCH FORSECOSDLA1 GUAGE TEACHERS

GRAHAM CROOKES

139

\\ f f'I( )WLEDGE:-'1E'STS . .

\ \ l( r-

S

10Craig Chaudron. GeorgeJacobs.Julie ~ r e ~ e s . M l k ~ Longfor c o m m ~ n t s

Iher versionsof thispaper, and to the

Applied Linguistics

reviewersfor exception

, 11 ,

II tl ,,'lpfu comments.

J

'\

or :

,

difference betwe-en theory-driven and teacher-originatedresearchis likelyto exist

1 I 1 1 . d ~ l ' r

or not the

field

movesaway fromd.ependence

~ e o ~ ~

oflearningand

c l ~ s e r

1 I ....

»ncs

of practice (for example, van Lier 1991), as It 15 still important

and

entirely

It,

II,NHHC

that teachers should investigate what isofimmediate concern to them.

(In

coo

~ ~ I ; I n g such issues, which there is not s p ~ c e to do in this paper. it may

be

useful to

- , ve the

distinction between a theorv-in-use-r-a

teachers

own conceptual map of

1 1 ' ( , ~ n J g - a n d a theorv of teaching as a more external cognitive entity jointly possessed

il ' -

. If, . . .. field as a whole.I

I

) [ ~ o n (1910)0:

8) stares:

'The

term action

research

isusually credited to

John

Collier,

I

of Indian Affairs from 1933 to 1945

(Corey

1953; Wallace 1987;Wann

, ,,/

, .

1 1

, ).

Others refer to

the

work o.fLewin ( 1 9 ~ 6 )

as

the l ~ c u s

classicus.

This been

I

urshed tradition in rural, agricultural.

and

commuruty development particularly

In

\ ' ~ I

I

lurd World and in the development of workplace democracy particularly in

t 1 •

l1lavia

(Elden

1979; Karlsen 1991). The general attitude (rather than the term

~ I · f l

; ~ l l r I can be t ~ e d back at

l e ~ t to,

Dewey

( f o ~

example. 1904)-cf. Cochran-Smithand

\ { J

'JCj{); t:'Je

best recent historical survey 15Holly (1991).

\ , , -IJnter (1 : 89) states

that

action research implies the rejection of positivist

con-

I

I I f l ~

of research.

nu s is no great imposition since much current social science is

, . .

t,l /) post-positivist. in sense of

m t e r p r e o ~ ' e

(Rorty ~ 9 7 9 ; Taylor

1 9 8 0 ~

l, h

J

;l1

1983.:.:

Newsome,

in

press). But a key

point in

this rejecnon

IS

the acceptance of

11 :1 11

l aild

lll:J,jerstandings of educational practice

( o b t a i n ~ d

through. for e x a m p l ~ , case

I

U beuae as desirable as,

and

more hkelv to

be

obtained than. broadlv applicable

<;ltl f , _ - • •

11 1 +LlJZZ:JOllli..

;'he raartetr

of

how.

from a practical point of view. such communities of action

I ' ,.-Icnen cam.

be

established, nurtured, and defended in difficult times

and

circum

I

a ccenotex

one. which it isnot myobjectiveto discuss here, whether or not any

~ t '

.

I1,,/411

err s u g g ~ t i ~ n s could be made.

One

anonymous r e V l ~ w e r of ~ c l e

. , , t ; ; r . ~

than. n Britain at least .. , a f te r a decade or so of considerable acuvrrv

.. .

(.,,1/1

,

. , ~ r ~ research] isat a low ebb .. . (Schools

I currentlvvisit

in

one

area .. . do

ll n

f '

t ,I 1,..f1 tt: ~ g r t 1 books:it is hard to see how teacher action r e s e a r ~ ~ c o u l ~ alter thisann-

,1 , , l K.3l fac::\. Nevertheless,Holly (1991:

143)commentsthat

It IS

action

researchers,

I' ••,.o:.

a

sense ofcommunity who becomethe

scufflers in

newchange scenarios ,

W I j l ' ~ ; f£r.

wisrnmg

to

be

over-optimistic, I would concur

that

with

s c h o o l ~

as with other

.

... :::t .nn2eisof ten unlikelvto succeed unless group development

IS

first fostered

In 1 - • -

I

.,.. / .e=.:C.l\: efforts are made on a united basis. (C f Crookes 1989.for some related

mp· - .

,•.,j I ;U.it..-:·. 5 U ~ e s U O n s .

t:

. :::l

am SL context, the topics investigated are likely to involve the social and

I

c-ccimons facilitating

or

preventingSLA-maners concerningmotivation. class

I

Cllftl.;//>ir.u:t:L . rne rol e of non-standard languages. etc .e-rather than the less context-

d..

, , ' : f ~ ~ reamer

of sequences of acquisition

order in syntax,

or the roleof planningand

fT/I,p111r,.,r.J:I.:f:II learning,

(,

The

conditions surrounding such a dialogue must also be supportive. Usher

and

Bryant (1989) provide a critique of action research relevant to this line of argument

bu t

prosecuted

at a muchhigherlevelof abstraction

drawing

on the ideas of Habennas (for

example,

1972)

and Gadamer (1981); cf,also Lather(1986}

7

A similar situation exists in psychology: 'When psychologists are requested to rank

order the usefulness of informational sources to their practice, research articles

and

booksofempirical researchare consistentlyratedat the bottom of thescale (Kupfersmid

1988;635). And from the researcher s perspective.Hadley (1987: 101),drawing on his

investigations of social institutions,states thatthere

was

'very little evidence that research

findings

presented

in

standard journal or

book

form engage the minds

of

those in

our

targetgroups

or

measurably affect. , ,the policiesof those practicesof social institutions .

s Here, for example, are Krashen and Terrell (1983: 1):

'At

the time this book was

written, ou r confidence in the NaturalApproach [whichtheyare therein commending to

the teacherj was

based

primarilyon underlyingtheory

.. . and

the enthusiasticreactionsof

students and instructors.

9

The failure of professional training-in education and applied linguistics

to

validate

this

gap. and the associatedlack of research(until recently]on the role of the practitioner

as a decision-maker

under

non-eliminableconditions of uncertainty only exacerbates the

gap between the knowledgebase for practice and practice itself.

Lampert and

Clark

(1990)

discuss the role of researchon teacher

thinking

in teacher

education.

Drawing

on Greeno (1990). they comment that the field should pay more

carefulattention

to how

experts

acquirewhatever knowledgemight

be

said

to characterize theirthinking

about th e problems of practice.. , .

The

domain of knowledge that belongs to experts

.. . is

an

environmentcontaining resources, , . [within which one

canlget

around .. . as

well

ashave

a sense ofwherethereis

to go. , . Ou r

readingof cognitive theoryand of the

research on teacher

thinking

suggests that the conventional academic pattern of

producing general principles from particular cases and delivering those principles to

novicesmaynot be the most appropriate

fonn

for teachereducationto take. (Lampert

and Clark 1990:22)

10

See, for instance, Goswami and Stillman (1987) or Johnstone(1990) for examples

ofsuch reports.

11

Cf Cochran-Smith and Lytle (1990: 3) who propose a four-part typology of

reacher-research formats: teachers journals, briefand book-length essays, oral inquiry

processes,

and

classroom studies . In addition, it

is

the

contextualized

nature of such

reports which makes them a more likely sourceof influence on teachers than standard

reports,

REFERENCES

Allwright,

D, and

K. M. Bailey. 1991. Focuson

the

LanguageClassroom. Cambridge:

Cambridge University Press.

Annstrong, D. G. 1980. Researchers incentives and the dearth of practical research

results. PeabodyJournal

of

Education

58/1:

55-60.

Arg)Tis, C. and D. A, Schon. 1991_ Participatory action research and action science

compared:a commentary

in W.F,

Whyte

(ed.]:

ParticipatoryAction

Science Newbury

Park, Calif.: Sage.

Bazerman, C. 1987, Codifying the social scientific style:The Publication Manual

8/9/2019 Crookes 1993


140

ACTION RESEARCH FORSECO:-iD LA:<GL AGETEACHERS

GRAHAM CROOKES

141

as a behaviorist rhetoric in J. S. Nelson. A. Megill,

and

D. N. McCloskey (eds.]:

The

Rhetoric

a/the

Human Sciences. Madison, \Vis.: Universitv ofWisconsinPress.

Beasley, R. and

L.

Riordan. 1981. The classroom teacher as researcher:

English in

Australia 55:36-41.

Bennett,

X

and

C. Desforges. 1985. Ensuring practical outcomes from educational

research in M.Shipman (00.):

Educational Research: Principles, Policies, and

Practice London: The FalmerPress.

Billups, L. H. and M. Rauth. 1987. Teachers and research in V.Richardson-Koehler

[ed.):Educators Handbook:A Research Perspective NewYork: Longman.

Brandon, P.

R.

1982. An Examination of an Interactive Approach-to Educational

Program Evaluation. PhD thesis, Universityof Hawaii.

Brindley, G.1990. Towards a research agenda fortiESOL: Prospect 6/1: 7-26.

Brumfit, C. and R. Mitchell .

1989.

he language ctlIsroom as a focus for research in

C.Brurnfit

and R.

Mitchell (eds.): Research in the Language Classroom

ELT Docu

ment 133:

3-15).

London:

Modern

English Publications.

Bullock.

R.

H. 1987. A quiet revolution: the power of teacher research

in

G.

L.

Bissex

and R.H. Bullock (eds.): Seeing for Ourselves. Portsmouth,KH: Heinemann.

Carr,

w.and S. Kemmis. 1986. Becoming Critical.London:The Falmer Press.

Chesler, A. 1990, Action research in

the

voluntarv sector. a case srudv of scholar

activist roles in self-help groups in S.A. Wheldon.

A_Pepitone. and

V

Abt OOs. :

Advancesin FieldTheory NewburyPark. Calif; Sage.

Cochran-Smith, M. and S. L. Lytle. 1990. Researchon teaching and teacher research:

The issues that divide. Educational Researcher 1912:2 11

Cohen. D. K.

1988. Teaching practice: Plus que

ca

change .. . in P .

W.

Jackson (ed.):

Contributingto EducationalChange.

Berkeley. Calif.: McCutchan.

Cohen. L. and L. Manion. 1985. Research Methods in Education (2nd edn.). London:

Croom Helm.

Corey. S.:\1. 1953. Action Research to ImproveSchool Practices.New York: Teachers

CollegeBureau of Publications. Columbia Universitv.

Crookes,G.1989. Grassrootsaction to improveESL

programs:

UH

Working Papersin

ESL 8/2: 45-61.

Crookes, G. 1992. Theory format and SLA theory: Studies in Second Language

Acquisition

11/4:

425-50.

Cuban. L. 1988. Constancy

and

change in schools

1880s

to the present) in P. W.

Jackson (ed.):

Contributing to Educational

Chame, Berkelev. Calif.:McCutchan.

Dewey, J. 1904. The Relation

of

Theory to Practice-in d u c t i ~ n (3rd NNSE Yearbook.

pt. 1).Chicago: Universityof Chicago Press.

Ebbutt, D. 1985. Educational action research: some general concerns and specific

quibbles in

R.

G. Burgess ed. :

Issuesin Educational Research: Qualitative Methods.

Lewes: The Falmer Press.

Elden. M. 1979. Three generat ions of work democracy experiments in ~ o r w y in

C.Cooper and E.Mumford (eds.) : The Quality of Work in Eastern and Western

Europe. London: Associated BusinessPress.

Elliott, J. 1987. Teachers as researchers in

M l

Dunkin (ed.):

The International

Encyclopedia of Teaching

and

Teacher Education.

Oxford: Pergamon.

Emmett, D. 1966. Rules, Roles and Relations. New York: St. Martin s Press.

Ericson, D. P. 1986. On critical theory

and

educational practice- inK. A Sirotnik and

1.

Oakes

(eds.): Critical Perspective on the Organization and Improvement of School

ing.

Boston: Kluwer-Nijhoff.

E ~ · k ~ I 1 L. B.

1987. Confess ions of a high school language teacher ,

or why

I

never (used to) read Foreign Language Annals . Foreign Language Annals 2 12:

265-6.

Florio, S.

and

M. Walsh. 1981. Th e teacheras colleague in classroom research in H.T.

Trueba,

G. P. Guthrie , and K.H.-P. Au [eds.):

Culture and the Bilingual Classroom:

Studies in ClassroomEthnography.

Rowley, Mass.: Newbury House.

Gadamer, H. G. 1981. Reason in the Age of Science (trans. F. Lawrence). Cambridge,

Mass.: MIT Press.

Gebhard. J, G., S. Gaitan, and R, Oprandy. 1987. Beyond prescription: the student

teacher

as investigator.

ForeignLanguageAnnal s

20/3: 227-32.

GoodIad,

t

1984.

A Place

WJ/ Ied

School.

New York: McGraw-HilI.

Gore. J.

M.

and

K.:\1.

e i h ~ ~ t i o n research and reflective teaching in

pre

service teacher educatiorra ~ ~ o the United States. Teaching and Teacher

Education 712:119-36.

Coswami, D. and P. R. Stil lman

eds.].

1987.

Reclaiming the Classroom: Teacher

Research asan Agencyfor Change.

UpperMontclair, VI.:Boynton-Cook.

Greeno,

J.

G. 1990. Number Sense as Situated Knowledge in a Conceptual Domain

ReportNo. IRL90-00·14). Palo Alto, Calif, Institute for Research on Learning.

Habennas, J. 1972. Knowledge and Human Interests (trans.

1.J.

Shapiro). London:

Heinemann.

Haherman, :11. and J,

Sikula.

1991. Preface in W.R.

Houston

(ed.): Handbook for

Research on TeacherEducation. New York: Macmillan.

Hadley, R. 1987. Publish

and

be ignored: proselytize and be damned in C. G. Wenger

[ed.): The Research Relationship. London: Allen

and

Unwin,

Hannen.

M

and

A.

Naish. 1976. What theory cannot do for teachers.

Education for

Teaching 96/1:

12-19.

Holly, P. 1991. Actionresearch:The missing link in the creationof schoolsas centersof

inquiry in A. Lieberman and L Miller (eds.): StaffDevelopment for Education in the

SQs.

New York: Teachers College Press.

Janis, G. 1991. Research on teaching methodology: Its evolution

and

prospects in B.

F.

Freed (ed.):

Foreign

Language Acquisition Research and the Classroom. Lexington,

Mass.: D.C. Heath.

Johnstone.

R. 1990. Action-research in the foreign languages classroom: Language

LeamingJoumal UK 111:18-21.

Karlsen. J. I.

1991. Action research as method: reflectionsfrom a program for develop

ing methods and competence in W.F. Whyte (ed.]:

Participatory

Action Research

(pp. 143-58). Newbury Park, Calif.: Sage.

Kelly, A. 1985. Action research: What is itand what can it do? in R G.Burgess(ed.) :

Issues in EducationalResearch:Qualitative Methods.

London: Falmer Press.

Kemml s. S, and R, :I1cTaggart (eds.).

1982. The Action Research Reader.

Deakin:

Deakin

University Press.

Kemmis, S. and R.

:\1cTaggart.

1988. Introduction in

S.

Kemrnis and

R McTaggart

(eds.]: TheAction Research Reader 3rd edn.). Deakin:Deakin University Press.

Klinghammer. S. J . 1987. Teacher as resea rche r.

English for Foreign Students in

English-speakingCountries Newsletter fESOL

Interest Section)

5/1.

3.

Kidder. R. :\1. 1991. Academic writing is convoluted,jargon-ridden. and isolated from

th e messy realities of the world: Chronicle ofHigher Education 37/20: B I-B3.

Krashen, S.

D. and T . D. Ter re ll . 1983. The Natural Approach. Oxford: Pergamon

Press.

8/9/2019 Crookes 1993


142

ACDON RESEARCH FOR

S E O ~

LA. GCAGE TEACHERS

GR H M

CROOKES

143

Kupfersmid,

J.

1988. Improving what is published: a mode

in

search of an edi tor.

Ameri can Ps\ chologist43/8: 635 42

Lampert, M. and C.M. Clark.

1990. Expert

knowledgeand expert thinking in teaching:

A

response

to Flodenand Klinzing. Educational Researcher 19/5: 21-3.

Lane, H. 1962. Experimentation in the language classroom: Guidelines and suggested

procedures forthe classroomteacher. Language Learning 12/2: 115-21.

Lather, P. 1986. Research as praxis. Harvard EducationalReview

56/3:

257-77.

LeCompte,

M.D. and

J.

P. Goetz. 1982. Problems of reliabilitv and validitv in ethno-

graphic research. Review ofEducational Research 52:

31-60

.

Lewin,

K.

1946. Action research

and

minorityproblems,

Journal

of

Social Issues

2:

34

46.

Lightbown, P.:\-1. 1985 Great expectations: Second language acquisition research

and

classroom teaching. Applied Linguistics

6:173-89.

Long. M H. 1989. Second language classroom research and teacher education in

C. Brumfitand R.Mitchell (eds.): Research in the Language Classroom

(ELT

Docu

ment 133). London: Modem English PUblications.

Lowry. C. D. 1908. The Relation

of

Superintendentsand Principals

to

the Training and

ProfessionalDevelopment

of

their Teachers

[Seventh yearbook of the NationalSociety

for the Studyof Education, pt. 1).Chicago,

Ill.:Uni-versity

of Chicago Press.

McDonough. J. and S. McDonough. 1990. What s the use of research? ELT Journal

44/2:

102-9.

Mclnryre,

A. 1981. After Vinue:A Study ofMoral Theory. London: Duckworth.

Miranda,

E. O. 1988. B roaden ing the focus of res ea rc h in

education:

Journal of

Research andDevelopment in Education

22/1:

23-38.

Mishler.

E. G. 1990. Validation in inquiry-guided research; the role of exemplars in

narrative studies:

Harvard Educational Review

60: 415-42.

Mohr, M. M. 1987. Teacher-researche rs and the s tudy of the wri ting process in

D. Goswami and P, R. Stillman (eds.): Reclaiming the Classroom: TeacherResearch as

anA gencyfor Change. Upper Montclair, VI.: Boynton/Cook.

Myers. M 1985. The Teacher-Researcher: How to Study Writing in the Classroom.

Urbana.Ill.:National Council for Teachers of English.

Netson.J.5., A.McGill.

and

D. N. McCloskey. (eds. 1987. TheRhetoricof theHuman

Sciences. Wisconsin: University of Wisconsin Press.

Newsome. G.

(in

press). Review: Becoming critical: education, knowledge.

and

action

research . Canadian Journal of Education.

Neubert. G. A. and J. B. Binko. 1987. T each-probe-revise: a model for initiating class

room research. The TeacherEducator

22/1:

9-17.

Nixon, J. 1981. A Teacher s Guide to Action Research. London:Grant Mcintyre.

: iunan.

D. 1989a. The teacher as researcher

in

C.Brumfit and R Mitchell (eds.):

Research inthe Language Classroom (ELT Document 133).London:

Modem

English

Publications.

Nunan, D.

1989b. Understanding Language Classrooms:A Guide for Teacher-initiated

Action. New York: Prentice-Hall.

Nunan. D. 1990. Ac tion resea rch in the language c lassroom in J. C. Richards and

D.

Nunan

(eds.): Second Language Teacher Education. Cambridge: Cambridge

UniversityPress.

Olsen.

M.

W. 1990. Th e teacher as researcher: a historical perspective in

:\1.

W.Olsen

(ed.): Opening the Door

to

Classroom Research. Newark. Del.: International Reading

Association.

Orem. R A. 1990. Theory, practice, research,

and

professionalization of the field of

Teaching English to Speakers of

Other

Languages in J.E. Alatis (ed.): Linguistics,

Language Teaching, and Language Acquisition.

Washington, DC: Georgetown

University Press.

Popham. W. J. 1991.·A slice of advice. Educatio nal Researcher 20/6: 18,35.

Ratcliffe, J. W. 1983. Notions of validity in qualitative research methodology. Know

ledge:Creation, Diffusion, Utilization 512:147 67

Ray. L C. 1987. Reflections on classroom research

in

D.Gcswami and P.R Stillman

[eds.): Reclaimingthe Classroom: Teacher Research asan Agencyfor Change.

Upper

Montclair, Vt.:

Bovnton/Cook.

Reason, P. and J. Rowan. 1981. Issues of val id ity in new paradigm resea rch in

P. Reason and J. Rowan (eds.): Human Inquiry. New York: Wiley.

Rogers. E. M. 1986. Modelsof knowledge transfer:critical perspectives in G. M. Beal,

W.Dissanayake, and S.Konoshima (eds.); Knowledge Generation, Exchange, and

Utilization. Boulder, Colo.: Westview.

Rodgers,

T.

andJ.

C.

Richards.

(n.d.).

Teacher-based curriculum

development:

illusion

or realirv? Ms.

Rorty,

R.

1979. Philosophy and the Mirror

of

Nature. Princeton, NJ: Princeton

University Press.

Sanford, 1981. A model for act ion resea rch in P .Reason and J .Rowan (eds.) :

Human Inquiry:A Sourcebook

of

New Paradigm Research.London: Wiley.

Schaefer. R J. 1967. The School asa Center of Inquiry. New York: Harperand Row.

Schuster,

J. A.and R.R.Yeo. 1986. Introduction in1.

A.

Schusterand

R.R.

Yeo (eds.):

ThePolitics and Rhetoric

of

Scientific Method: Historical Studies.

Dordrecht: Reidel.

Shostak.

R.

J.

1987. Teachers centres in

M.

J . Dunkin (ed.) : The International

Encyclopedia

of

Teachingand TeacherEducation,

Oxford: Pergamon.

Simon.

H. A. 1957. .\fodels ofMan. New York: Free Press.

Simon, H. A. 1958. Administrative Behavior (2nd edn.).New York: Macmillan.

Shavetson, R. J. 1988. Contributions of educational research to policy and practice:

Constructing, challenging, changing cognition. Educational Researcher

:

4-11.

22.

Sirolnik.

K.

A.and

J.

I. Goodlad. (eds.). 1988. School-UniversityPannerships in Action:

Concepts, Cases,and Concerns. New York:

Teachers

College Press.

Sirotnik.. K. A.and

J.

Oakes. 1986. Criticalinquiry for school renewal inK. A, Sirotnik

and J. Oakes

(eds.):

Critical Perspective on the

rg ruuuion

and Irnprovemeru of

Schooling. Boston: Kluwer-Nijhoff

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.

Taylor. C.

i980.

Understanding in

human

science. Review

of

Metaphysics 34:

25-38.

Torbert,

W. R. 1981. Why educational research has

been

so uneducationa1: The case for

a new model of social s ci ence based on collaborative inquiry in P.Reason and

J. Rowan (eds.):Human Inquiry. New York: John Wiley.

Tyler,

R.

. 1988. Utilizationof research by practitioners ineducation in P. W.Jackson

(ed.):Contributing to Educational Change. Berkeley, Calif.:McCutchan.

Usher, R.

and I.

BI ·3Ot.

1989.

Adult

Education as Theory, Practice,and Research:The

CaptiveTriangle.London: Routledge.

van Ller,

L.

1988. TheClassroom and the Language Teacher.London: Longman.

8/9/2019 Crookes 1993


144

T I O ~

RESEARCHFOR SECONDLANGUAGETEACHERS

van Ller, L 1991. Insidethe classroom:learningproceduresand teaching procedures.

AppliedLanguage

Learning

2/1: 29-70.

van Lier, L andK. Bailey. 1988. Innovationandactionresearch in pre-service teacher

education. Paperpresentedat the 23rd annual TESOLconvention, SanAntonio, Tex.

Wallace, M. 1987. A historical reviewof action research:Some implications for the

educationof teachers in their managerialrole.

Journal

EducationfOT

Teaching

13/

2:97-115.

Wann, K.D. 1953. Action research

in

schools: Reviewof Educational Research 23/4:

337-45.

Whitehead, J. and P. Lomax. 1987. Action research and the politics of educational

knowledge:

British

Educational

Research

Journal

3 2:

175 90

Winter,

R ~ 9 8 8 Leamingfrom Experience: Principlesand Practice

n

ActionResearch

London f almerPress

. -

i

\

<,

»:

/

crookes 1993

Documents