Research Digest

On the Capacity of Action Research in
Language Classrooms

Joseph Siegel
J. F. Oberlin University
The capacity of Action Research (AR) in the fields of applied linguistics and language
teaching has been praised by some commentators and criticized by others. While AR has
been featured in several publications on research methods for applied linguistics, several
perceived drawbacks of this approach have hindered its more widespread application andimplementation. In order to promote the viability of AR, this paper highlights several
benefits and reviews criticisms of both conceptual and practical limitations of this type of
research. The paper then suggests practical solutions for overcoming these hurdles so that
more teacher-researchers are able to undertake AR projects in their language classrooms.
Examples from AR studies conducted by the author serve to exemplify ways in which thesesolutions can be applied in practice. The paper argues that AR is achievable for any teacher
interested in improving their language classrooms and their professional teaching practices.

応用言語学及び言語教育の分野におけるアクションリサーチの適用可能性については賛否両論がある。アクションリサーチは、応用言語学の研究手法として学術論文で取りあげられている一方で、通念的に考えられている問題点のために、より広範な実用と応用が妨げられている。アクションリサーチの活用を促進するために本論文では、この研究手法の利点を述べるとともに、手法に関する概念的、実用的批判に関して考察を行う。また、より多くの教師兼研究者が語学の授業の中でアクションリサーチを行うことができるよ
う、批判に挙げられる問題点に対する実践的な解決策を提案する。更に、筆者が行ったアクションリサーチの研究に基づく具体例を用いて、ここに提示される解決策が実際に適用可能であることを示す。本研究を通して、授業の改善や教育の質の向上を目指す教師にとって、アクションリサーチが実践可能であることを主張する。

42

On the Capacity..., OnCUE Journal, 6(3), pages 42-53

The role of Action Research (AR) in the field of applied linguistics and language
teaching continues to gain recognition and stature. Within the last decade orso, AR is featured in publications by Burns (2009, 2010a, 2010b), McNiff andWhitehead (2000), and Nunan and Bailey (2009), and also receives attention
in works such as Dörnyei (2007), Heigham and Croker (2009), Mackey andGass (2005), and McKay (2009). However, AR has also been criticized in theliterature for theoretical and practical limitations. While it may not always beseen to have the prestige of more recognized research paradigms at present (e.g.,
Burns, 1999; Nunan, 1992), AR has the potential to make significant impacts on
language teaching and research as it promotes understanding and enhancementof institutional or classroom situations, and of learning and teaching practices.
The purpose of this paper is to review criticisms of AR and suggest solutions forovercoming those issues in order to promote and facilitate the growing interest
in AR in applied linguistics and language teaching.

What is AR?

The concept of AR has been in existence for more than a century (Burns,
1999) and is a systematic approach for researching situations and reflecting ondata in order to improve existing circumstances. The benchmark AR cycle wasintroduced by Kemmis and McTaggart (1988) and consists of the following
stages:• Plan: Identify an area that is in need of examination and plan anintervention aiming to improve that area.
• Act: Implement an intervention (e.g., a new teaching technique, newmaterials, etc.).
• Observe: Collect data related to the intervention (e.g., throughquestionnaires, samples of student work, class observation, etc.).
• Reflect: Review and reflect on data, draw conclusions, and plansubsequent revisions to the intervention.
Many descriptions of AR include the following essential characteristics, as
identified by several authors, such as Carr and Kemmis (1986), Nunan (1992),
Wallace (1998), and Burns (1999, 2010a):43Siegel• AR is teacher-initiated.
• AR is small-scale and localised.
• AR seeks to improve situations for teachers and students.
• AR involves systematic data collection.
• AR measures change over time.
• AR is ongoing.
According to Burns (1999): “[AR] applies a systematic process ofinvestigating practical issues or concerns which arise within a particularsocial context” (p. 31). While minor differences may exist among the various
definitions put forth by these experts, the core aspects remain consistent.

Benefits of AR

There are a number of reasons AR should be recognized as an important current
and future orientation for emphasizing the applied in applied linguistics. That is,
AR locates research in real language learning and teaching situations rather thanmore contrived and controlled settings. Through AR, teaching techniques canbe trialed, learning outcomes assessed, and modifications to classroom practices
made. AR also promotes an expanded role for teachers in their own classrooms
and is open to a variety of research methods, allowing teacher-researchers tochoose data collection tools based on contextual situations, research objectives,and available resources.
Bettering situations for teachers and students
One of the appealing aspects of AR is its capacity to improve situations. In theliterature, these improvements are described in two ways, both occurring at
the AR Planning Stage: one view focuses on problem solving (e.g., Bell, 1999;
Freeman, 1998) while the other centers on improving practice (e.g., Burns,
2010a; Carr & Kemmis, 1986). Despite differences in the terminology of thesetwo perspectives, both lead to the bettering of classroom situations.
The problem solving aspect, discussed by Bell (1999) and Freeman(1998), implies that an initial problem exists, is subsequently identified, andcalls for initiation of AR. Through AR, the problem is acted upon, results
44

On the Capacity..., OnCUE Journal, 6(3), pages 42-53

are systematically examined, and finally reflected upon. The aims of AR often
involve some degree of modification to the situation with the intention of
positive change, though perspectives may differ on whether a change is indeed
for the better. This view of AR is quite straightforward and tangibly assessable. It
is, in general, what many people do when faced with problems in any situation:act, and assess that action in order to determine if or to what degree a problem
has been eliminated.
At a deeper level, AR has the capacity to improve practice. This moresophisticated motivation for AR is not merely focused on solving problems, butallows practitioners to seek constant professional development. Teachers canidentify areas of their teaching or their students’ learning that they may want
to improve, and these areas need not be classified as “problems.” AR can takeplace even in the absence of a problem. Burns (2010a) describes this process as“problematising [which means] taking an area you feel could be done better,subjecting it to questioning, and then developing new ideas and alternatives”(p. 2). It is more of an abstraction of practice to the theoretical level (A. Burns,
personal communication, June 21, 2010). In other words, the theory emerges
from the data and practice. This concept is also an extension of qualitative
research that may generate theories from data but not expressly improvesituations.
Another key feature of the AR sequence is its continuous nature. That is, thereflection phase can be used to inform a subsequent plan and intervention. The
cycle may continue as long as researchers seek to improve practice. As Bell (1999)
puts it, “the task is not finished when the project ends” (p. 8). Likewise, Burns(1999; 2010a) and Freeman (1998) acknowledge that there is no definitive
endpoint for AR. The potential for this ongoing momentum should be seen as a
distinctive characteristic of AR.
Expanding roles for teachers
Over the years, the role of AR has shifted into what may now be termed its
social-participatory generation (Burns, 2011). This label implies the involvementof those with extensive knowledge of and regular contact in local situations.
45

SiegelIt allows for and urges widespread participation, as opposed to specialist
involvement. By engaging in AR, teachers can exert control of the directions of
their classrooms and their own professional development. Since AR is aimed
at improving situations, it seems logical that educators who want to improve
themselves, their students, their classrooms, or all three, will take steps to
implement AR investigations.
Teachers can be empowered to take action in order to positively change
current situations. As Burns (2010b) puts it: “[AR] is deliberately interventionist,
aimed at disturbing and unsettling the status quo” (p. 87). In other words, whenan educator encounters a situation in need of improvement, they have a courseof action they themselves can initiate. Burns (2010a) points out that throughAR teachers can establish themselves professionally, as well as have an influencein educational decision-making. Additionally, possibilities exist for teachers to
improve their teaching methods due to increased contextual understanding of
their teaching environments. Such potential for professional improvement may
not manifest itself immediately or tangibly, although strengthened contextualcompetence can continue to be an asset after an AR investigation is completed.
By employing AR approaches, teachers are able to incorporate research into
their workplace routines. This marks a continuing shift in the traditional role ofteacher in that teachers are able to intervene, address issues, and inform practice(Burns, 2009). Freeman (1998) discusses the emerging role of the teacherresearcher as well. He points out that AR practitioners operate in dual roles
and “work at the hyphen [of teacher-researcher]” (p. 8) to first better informthemselves and then to improve their teaching.
Triangulation
A third advantage of AR involves triangulation, which is defined as the“gathering [of ] data from a number of different sources so that the researchfindings or insights can be tested out against each other” (Burns, 1999, p. 25).
Various types of triangulation have been put forward, such as triangulation oftime, investigators, theories, and participants (Denzin, 1978; Webb, Campbell,
Schwartz, & Sechrest, 2000), all of which can be included in AR in diverse46

On the Capacity..., OnCUE Journal, 6(3), pages 42-53

combinations. With AR, data collection methods from both qualitative andquantitative traditions can be used for the purposes of producing accuratesituational representations and increasing the robustness of studies (e.g., Denzin,
1978; Dörnyei, 2007). While more traditional research paradigms may operate
in ways explicitly disconnected and segregated from each other, AR allows
integration and triangulation of research methods for better understanding ofresults.

Limitations of AR

This section addresses three major criticisms of AR that have been identified inresearch methodology literature: conceptual level concerns, practical issues, andreputational matters.
Conceptual level concerns
The first criticism involves theoretical models of AR. One argument is that theconceptual objectives and parameters of AR have been classified as being limited
and shortsighted in scope (Allwright, 2005). AR is sometimes thought to be an
approach that targets isolated problems; however, some writers (e.g., Allwright,
2003) believe a research model that includes more global relevance may be
preferable. That is, a research approach that potentially informs a wider audiencethrough generalizable findings in addition to providing localized improvements
may be ideal.
Furthermore, when illustrated in the literature, many AR sequences appear
to be perfectly linear; stages seem to follow each other in smooth patterns inprescribed sequences. These patterns may be difficult to replicate in real-world
situations, as AR stages do not always proceed in such a flawless linear fashion.
In fact, the clean-cut AR stages outlined in the literature may go askew during a
project (McNiff & Whitehead, 2000). Therefore, some descriptions of AR may
be misleading to an extent, as practical application of AR models may be more
complicated than some frameworks appear in the literature.

47

SiegelPractical issues
Questions have also been raised regarding whether teachers have the time,
incentives, and abilities to conduct AR (Allwright, 2005; Dörnyei, 2007).
Indeed, the argument can be made that any form of research may fall outsideof the typical duties a teacher is employed to perform at their institution. In
addition, while some teachers may be in positions to conduct AR, they maylack sufficient research skills, at least initially. Dörnyei (2007) contends that it
is “often unrealistic to expect teachers to have the expertise to conduct rigorous
research” (p. 191). This line of thinking would delegate research to thoseclassified as “researchers,” and leave teaching to teachers.
Reputation of AR
Though knowledge of and appreciation for AR are steadily developing, itremains a method less reputable than other research paradigms (Nunan, 1992).
More than a decade ago, Burns (1999) pointed out that AR “suffers from alack of prestige compared with more established forms of language education
research” (p. 25). However, with current interests in professional teacher
training and postgraduate education, attitudes towards AR may be beginningto change. Several recent works on language research methodology feature AR,
all verification of its gaining momentum (e.g., Burns, 2010a; Nunan & Bailey,2009).

Overcoming AR obstacles

This section reviews the criticisms leveled at AR from the literature and suggests
practical solutions for resolving these issues. To illustrate the feasibility of thesesuggestions, at times, I refer to one of my current AR projects related to second
language listening pedagogy in university English classes in Japan.
Issue 1: Findings from AR lack generalizability
While findings from AR projects are localized and cannot be universally
generalized, they can be used to inform other similar teaching contexts. Whenreading AR project reports, teachers should search for commonalities between
the research context and their own teaching environment. When doing and48

On the Capacity..., OnCUE Journal, 6(3), pages 42-53

publishing AR reports, teacher-researchers may wish to emphasize any findingsthat may help inform fellow teachers or suggest other contexts in which similar
AR projects may be beneficial.
Issue 2: Prescribed AR sequences break down in the realworld
The linear AR patterns in research methods books are not meant to be static, as
real-world teaching and learning situations often require ongoing modification
and reaction. For instance, McNiff and Whitehead (2000) point out that there
can be “a good deal of creative zig-zagging” (p. 202) when conducting AR.
Such circumstances may reflect actual teaching and learning, which are at times
affected by myriad factors. Though AR stages are often presented in a simplified,sequential fashion, the structure of AR continues to evolve, and it is not uniform
for each AR investigation. The flexibility offered by AR should be embraced
because it allows projects to adapt and grow when obstacles arise.
In my project on listening pedagogy, I originally planned a listening strategy
instruction intervention using authentic listening materials. However, due
to administrative requirements, I needed to use textbook listening material
rather than authentic audio and video texts. Rather than abandon the project,
I applied the same listening strategy principles to the textbook material and wasable to continue the project. Ideas from my original Planning Stage stumbled
at the Action Stage; therefore, I needed to revert to the Planning Stage, makeadjustments, and continue.
Issue 3: Teachers lack time to conduct AR
If a teacher wants to conduct an AR project but is concerned about time
investment, one strategy is to make reasonable choices about the scope of the
project. Rather than try to address all four language skills, for example, theteacher may select the one they feel is most in need of attention. Anothertechnique is to stagger data collection; for instance, different types of data canbe collected during different semesters, or data collection elements can be added
progressively, thereby helping AR practitioners to familiarize themselves with
one data collection tool before incorporating another.
49

SiegelFor my project, I had initially planned to implement listening strategy
instruction across four levels of a university English curriculum, from elementary
to advanced. However, that would not have been possible due to the large timecommitment. Therefore, I reconsidered and limited the project to only theintermediate level. I also added data collection tools over the course of threesemesters. I started with questionnaires and interviews and added classroom
observation and test scores to the data in subsequent semesters.
Issue 4: Teachers lack incentives to conduct AR
As mentioned above, teachers can benefit from AR by establishing themselvesprofessionally, increasing their understanding of their own teaching contexts,
and improving their teaching ability. Over and above those rather intangible
incentives, AR projects have been gaining more recognition in academic
publications and appear regularly in journals such as Educational Action
Research, English Teachers Forum, and Korea TESOL Journal. In addition,
financial incentives including JALT Research Grants (http://jalt.org) and grants
from the Japan Society for the Promotion of Science ( JSPS; http://www.jsps.
go.jp) are available to help facilitate various types of research, including AR.
Issue 5: Teachers lack the research ability to conduct AR
With the growing number of teachers who have earned or are currently studying
for post graduate degrees in applied linguistics or language teaching, the researchknowledge, skills, and standards of language educators is likely improving. There
are also books (e.g., Brown, 1998), data session discussion groups (e.g., Japan
Association for Ethnographic and Conversation Analysis, http://emca.jp), andcollaborative communities of teachers interested in research (e.g., International
Teacher Development Institute, http://itdi.pro) that many teachers utilize toimprove their researching ability.
Issue 6: AR is less reputable than other forms of research
AR is receiving more attention in works on research methods for applied
linguistics and language teaching. Through triangulation, AR practitioners cancome to more trustworthy and well-balanced conclusions through their flexible50

On the Capacity..., OnCUE Journal, 6(3), pages 42-53

use of appropriate data collection tools and analysis procedures. It can be argued
that any single research method, such as questionnaires, discourse analysis, orclassroom observation, has advantages as well as inherent weaknesses. When
individual methods are carefully selected and combined, each method can bringits strengths while simultaneously compensating for the vulnerabilities of othermethods. The capacity for careful and robust research designs and procedures,along with the growing visibility of AR in academic journals and at conference
presentations, indicates that the reputation of AR may be improving.

Conclusion

AR has been described as “well-suited for teachers conducting classroom
research [and is] becoming increasingly prominent in the research methodology
literature in our field” (Nunan & Bailey, 2009, p. 226). The popularity of AR
is growing as understanding of its user-friendly qualities (Wallace, 1998)
becomes more widespread. This maturation process continues despite perceived
theoretical, practical, and status-related limitations. Although the belief that
AR would be valuable in “an ideal world…[but] does not seem to work inpractice” (Dörnyei, 2007, p. 191) may exist, this paper has offered suggestions
for how AR practitioners can overcome such obstacles. It has argued that AR
has the potential to make significant impacts on the lives of students, teachers,
and the classrooms in which they function, and that AR projects are achievable
undertakings for any teacher aiming to improve the status quo.

Acknowledgement

The author would like to thank Professor Anne Burns of Aston University for her
insightful comments on an earlier version of this paper.

References

Allwright, D. (2003). Exploratory practice: Rethinking practitioner research inlanguage teaching. Language Teaching Research, 7, 113-141.
Allwright, D. (2005). Developing principles for practitioner research: The caseof exploratory practice. Modern Language Journal, 89(3), 353-366.
51

SiegelBell, J. (1999). Doing your research project (3rd ed.). Berkshire, England: Open
University Press.
Brown, J. D. (1998). Understanding research in second language learning.
Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
Burns, A. (1999). Collaborative action research for English language teachers.
Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
Burns, A. (2009). Action research. In J. Heigham & R. Croker (Eds.),
Qualitative research in applied linguistics (pp. 112-134). New York, NY:
Palgrave Macmillan.
Burns, A. (2010a). Doing action research in English language teaching: A guidefor practitioners. New York, NY: Routledge.
Burns, A. (2010b). Action research. In B. Paltridge & A. Phakiti (Eds.),
Continuum companion to research methods in applied linguistics (pp. 80-97).
London, England: Continuum.
Burns, A. (2011). Action research in the field of second language teaching andlearning. In E. Hinkel (Ed.), Handbook of research in the second language
teaching and learning (2nd ed., pp. 237-253). New York, NY: Routledge.
Carr, W., & Kemmis, S. (1986). Becoming critical: Education, knowledge, andaction research. Geelong, Australia: Deakin University Press.
Denzin, N. (1978). Sociological methods: A sourcebook (2nd ed.). New York, NY:
McGraw Hill.
Dörnyei, Z. (2007). Research methods in applied linguistics. Oxford, England:
Oxford University Press.
Freeman, D. (1998). Doing teacher research: From inquiry to understanding.
Boston, MA: Heinle & Heinle Publishers.
Heigham, J., & Croker, R. (Eds.). (2009). Qualitative research in applied
linguistics. New York, NY: Palgrave Macmillan.
Kemmis, S., & McTaggart, R. (Eds.). (1988). The action research planner (3rded.). Geelong, Australia: Deakin University Press.
McKay, S. L., (2009). Second language classroom research. In A. Burns & J. C.
Richards (Eds.), The Cambridge guide to second language teacher education(pp. 281-288). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
52

On the Capacity..., OnCUE Journal, 6(3), pages 42-53

Mackey, A., & Gass, S. (2005). Second language research: Methodology anddesign. Mahway, NJ: Erlbaum Publishers.
McNiff, J., & Whitehead, J. (2000). Action research in organisations. London,
England: Routledge.
Nunan, D. (1992). Research methods in language learning. Cambridge, England:
Cambridge University Press.
Nunan, D., & Bailey, K. M. (2009). Exploring second language classroom
research. Boston, MA: Heinle Cengage Learning.
Wallace, M. J. (1998). Action research for language teachers. Cambridge,
England: Cambridge University Press.
Webb, E., Campbell, D., Schwartz, R., & Sechrest, L. (2000). Unobtrusive
measures (Rev. ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Author’s bio

Joseph Siegel has taught for several years at the university level in Japan and is a PhD
candidate at Aston University (UK), where his research focuses on implementation of
L2 listening strategy instruction at the university level. His research interests include
theories of listening, classroom interaction, and action research. siegel@obirin.ac.jp

Received: March 6, 2012
Accepted: June 12, 201353