DIVISION OF ENGLISH LANGUAGE TEACHING A MASTER‘S THESIS
ENGLISH LANGUAGE TEACHERS’
PERCEPTIONS OF AND ENGAGEMENT IN
RESEARCH
MELİKE BULUT
SUPERVISOR
ASSOC. PROF. DR. MUHLİSE COŞKUN ÖGEYİK
CO-SUPERVISOR
ASSIST. PROF. DR. HÜSNÜ CEYLAN EDİRNE 2011
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
From the beginning till the end, this thesis study is the product of a considerably long process which would not have been achieved without the support of others. Thus I would like to express my gratitude to all those who contributed this process.
Firstly, I would like to express special thanks to my supervisor Assoc. Prof. Dr. Muhlise COŞKUN ÖGEYİK, who has always been a perfect model for me as an academician. This study would not have been completed without her constant encouragement, constructive feedback and invaluable advice. She has been a source of inspiration and insights. I would also like to thank my co-supervisor Assist. Prof. Dr. Hüsnü CEYLAN for his kindness and support.
I am also grateful to Assist. Prof. Dr. Demirali Yaşar ERGİN for his guidance in the statistical analysis of the study. His kind support has been of great value for this study.
I cannot miss thanking my dear teacher and roommate Şaziye ALKAYALAR for her good companion and time to read my thesis. She greatly improved the flow and clarity of the manuscript.
My sincere thanks are due to the Ethical Committee and Ministry of National Education staff in Edirne for their heartily support while getting permissions for the administration of the study. I am also indebted to the teachers who participated in the study for their time, trust and cooperation.
Last but not least, I owe my deepest thanks to my parents Nevin and Ünver BULUT, and my brother Ekrem BULUT for their loving support, affection and encouragement all through my life. They always kept me calm and confident during this study with their belief in me.
Title: English Language Teachers‘ Perceptions of and Engagement in Research Author: Melike BULUT
ABSTRACT
This thesis study aims to reveal English language teachers‘ perceptions of and engagement in research. Thus, the study attempts to investigate the English language teachers‘ perceptions of research, their level of research engagement (either by reading or doing), drivers and barriers of this research engagement and their perceptions of the institutional research culture. The study was designed as a survey which adopts a mixed-method design. The quantitative data was collected through ―English language teachers‘ views of research‖ questionnaire from 225 teachers in Edirne, Turkey and then the qualitative data acquired from interviews with 27 teachers helped explore and build on the quantitative data. The results of this research study determined that the English language teachers‘ research engagement was limited due to a number of factors. First of all, although the teachers appreciated the importance and benefits of research engagement, their perceptions about research led them to regard research engagement as an unsustainable activity. On the other hand, positive perceptions about institutional research culture and formal Master‘s degree course requirements were found to promote the teachers‘ research engagement.
Key words: English language teaching, teacher research, research engagement,
Başlık: İngilizce Öğretmenlerinin Araştırmaya Yönelik Algıları ve Katılımları Yazar: Melike BULUT
ÖZET
Bu tez çalışması İngilizce öğretmenlerinin araştırmaya yönelik algılarını ve katılımlarını belirlemeyi amaçlamaktadır. Bu nedenle çalışma, İngilizce öğretmenlerinin araştırma algılarını, okuma ya da yapma yoluyla araştırmaya katılım düzeylerini, araştırmaya katılımlarını sağlayan ya da engelleyen etmenleri ve kurumsal araştırma kültürü algılarını incelemektedir. Araştırma, çoklu yöntem kullanılan tarama modelinde tasarlanmıştır. Nicel veriler ―İngilizce Öğretmenlerinin Araştırma Görüşleri‖ anketi ile Edirne‘de 225 öğretmenden toplanmıştır. 27 öğretmen ile yapılan görüşmelerden sağlanan nitel veriler ise, nicel verilerin açımlanmasında ve geliştirilmesinde kullanılmıştır. Bu çalışmadan elde edilen sonuçlara göre İngilizce öğretmenlerinin araştırmaya katılımları birçok etmen nedeni ile sınırlı kalmaktadır. Öncelikle, öğretmenler araştırmaya katılımın önemini ve faydalarını kavramalarına rağmen, araştırma hakkındaki algıları araştırmayı sürdürülemez bir etkinlik olarak görmelerine sebep olmaktadır. Öte yandan, kurumsal araştırma kültürü hakkındaki olumlu algıların ve yüksek lisans derecesindeki ders gerekliliklerinin öğretmenlerin araştırmaya katılımlarını desteklediği görülmüştür.
Anahtar Sözcükler: İngiliz dili eğitimi, öğretmen araştırması, araştırma katılımı,
TABLE OF CONTENTS
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ... i
ABSTRACT ... ii
ÖZET ... iii
TABLE OF CONTENTS ... iv
LIST OF FIGURES ... vii
LIST OF TABLES ... viii
CHAPTER 1: THE STUDY ... 1
1.1. Introduction ... 1 1.2. Problem ... 3 1.3. Aim ... 3 1.4. Participants ... 4 1.5. Significance ... 6 1.6. Assumptions ... 6 1.7. Limitations ... 6
1.8. Terms and concepts ... 7
1.9. Abbreviations ... 8
CHAPTER 2: REVIEW OF LITERATURE ... 9
2. 1. ELT as a Scientific Discipline... 9
2. 1. 1. Interdisciplinary Nature of ELT ... 9
2.1. 2. Research Methods in ELT ... 11
2. 1. 3. The Gap between ELT Researchers and Teachers ... 17
2. 2. Language Teacher Research Engagement ... 19
2. 2. 1. Engagement in Research ... 21
2. 2. 2. Engagement with Research ... 25
2. 2. 3. Conditions for Teacher Research ... 26
2. 3. Relevant Research ... 29
CHAPTER 3: RESEARCH DESIGN ... 41
3. 1. Research Methods ... 41
3. 3. Data collection ... 47
3. 3. 1. Questionnaire ... 47
3. 3. 2. Interviews ... 49
3. 4. Data Analysis ... 50
3. 4. 1. Quantitative data analysis ... 50
3. 4. 2. Qualitative data analysis ... 50
CHAPTER 4: FINDINGS ... 52
4. 1. The teachers‘ conceptions of research ... 52
4. 1. 1. The teachers‘ views of what research is ... 52
4. 1. 2. The teachers‘ views of the characteristics of good quality research ... 57
4. 2. Reading Research ... 61
4. 2. 1. Differences in reading frequency in terms of demographic variables ... 63
4. 2. 2. Reasons for Reading Published Research ... 64
4. 2. 3. Sources for Reading Published Research ... 64
4. 2. 4. Impact of reading published research on teaching ... 67
4. 2. 5. Reasons for not reading published research ... 68
4. 3. Doing Research ... 69
4. 3. 1. Differences in Doing Research Frequencies in terms of Demographic Variables ... 70
4. 3. 2. Reasons for doing research ... 71
4. 3. 3. Types of research the teachers do ... 73
4. 3. 4. Reasons for not doing research ... 75
4. 4. Institutional Research Culture ... 76
4. 4. 1. Differences in the teachers‘ perceptions of the institution research culture in terms of demographic variables ... 78
4. 4. 2. Impact of Institutional Culture on Research Engagement ... 79
4. 5. The teachers‘ perceptions of research & practice relationship in the field of ELT ... 81
CHAPTER 5: DISCUSSION ... 83
5. 1. English Language Teachers‘ Perceptions of Research ... 83
5. 2. English Language Teachers‘ Engagement in Research ... 85
5. 3. Impact of Institutional Research Culture on English Language Teachers‘ Research Engagement ... 90
CHAPTER 6: CONCLUSION AND SUGGESTIONS ... 92
6. 1. Conclusion ... 92
6. 2. Implications ... 96
6. 3. Suggestions for further research... 97
REFERENCES ... 99
APPENDICES ... 111
Appendix I. English Language Teaching BA Program Courses ... 112
Appendix II. A Sample In-Service Education Program ... 113
Appendix III. English Language Teachers‘ Views of Research Questionnaire ... 115
Appendix IV. Consent Letter from the Ministry of National Education District Office... 121
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1: Stern‘s general model for second language teaching ... 10 Figure 2: Types of Research ... 13 Figure 3: Classroom research, Action Research, and Teacher Research ... 22
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1: Comparing classroom research, teacher research, and action research ... 23
Table 2: Conditions for teacher research... 28
Table 3: Distribution of English language teachers in Edirne ... 44
Table 4: Distribution of the questionnaire sample ... 45
Table 5: Teachers‘ assessments of ten scenarios ... 53
Table 6: Percentages of ratings to the scenarios ... 54
Table 7: Teachers‘ ratings of the characteristics of research ... 57
Table 8: Percentages of the ratings of the characteristics of research ... 58
Table 9: ANOVA results of teachers‘ views of good quality research in terms of experience ... 59
Table 10: Post Hoc results of teachers‘ views of good quality research in terms of experience ... 59
Table 11: ANOVA results of teachers‘ views of good quality research in terms of the setting they learnt research methods ... 60
Table 12: Post Hoc results of teachers‘ views of good quality research in terms of the setting they learnt research methods ... 60
Table 13: Teachers‘ reported frequency of reading published language teaching research ... 62
Table 14: Reported sources for reading published research ... 65
Table 15: Influence of reading published language research on teaching ... 67
Table 16: Reported reasons for not reading published research ... 68
Table 17: Teachers‘ reported frequency of doing research ... 69
Table 18: Chi-Square results forteachers‘ frequency of doing research according to their institution ... 71
Table 19: Crosstab results for teachers‘ frequency of doing research according to their institution ... 71
Table 20: Reported reasons for doing research ... 72
Table 21: Reported reasons for not doing research ... 75
Table 22: The teachers‘ perceptions of the institutional research culture ... 77
Table 23: Percentages of the ratings to the statements on institutional research culture ... 77
Table 24: ANOVA results of the teachers‘ opinions of institutional research culture in terms of the location of their institution ... 79
Table 25: Post Hoc results of teachers‘ opinions of institutional research culture in terms of the location of their institution ... 79
Table 26: ANOVA results for the impact of institutional culture on reading published research ... 80
Table 27: Post Hoc results of the impact of institutional culture on reading published research ... 80
Table 28: ANOVA results of the impact of institutional culture on doing research . 81 Table 29: Post Hoc results of the impact of institutional culture on doing research. 81
CHAPTER 1
THE STUDY
This introductory chapter begins with brief background information to the study. Then the problem, aim and the participants of the research are presented, followed by the significance, assumptions and limitations of the study. The chapter ends with the descriptions of the terms and concepts, and the abbreviations.
1. 1. Introduction
Although the main purpose of educational research is to contribute to the improvement of educational processes and outcomes; there is a long debate about the lack of communication between researchers and practitioners in education dating back to 70s (Stenhouse, 1975, 1981; Schön, 1983; Elliot, 1991; Hargreaves, 1996). McIntyre (2005) refers to this lack as ‗a large gap‘ between the knowledge that educational research has generated and the practice of teaching.
Hargreaves (1996) argued that ‗teaching would be more effective and more satisfying‘ if it undertook more evidence-based practice. Therewithal, Hillage et al. (1998) blamed educational research for not meeting the needs of practitioners. In the study, research was found to be irrelevant to the needs of teachers and inaccessible in terms of both physical access and the media used to report research findings.
Considering supportive impact of research on education, several research studies have been conducted into the teachers‘ engagement in research in the education generally or in specific education fields, and a few of them studied in the context of English Language Teaching. A number of funded initiatives began to encourage teachers to become more research-engaged and/or conduct their own research. The Teacher Research Grant Pilot Scheme launched in 1996 by the Teacher Training Agency (TTA) and the Best Practice Research Scholarships introduced in
2000 funded by Department for Education and Skills (DfES) may well be listed among these attempts. Generally, the studies approved the facilitative use of and involvement in research by teachers for teacher development and teaching processes.
In Turkey, Ministry of National Education Teacher Training and Education General Directorate determined ―English Language Teaching Field-Specific Qualifications‖ as a result of a set of scientific investigations during two years between 2006 and 2008 within a project supported by European Union. These qualifications were divided into five main sections: planning and organizing English language teaching processes; developing language skills; monitoring and assessing language development; cooperating with school, family and society; and pursuing professional development (MEB, 2008).
Using scientific research methods and techniques in professional practices and reflecting the results of such investigations to their practices were listed as necessary qualifications for English language teachers within pursuing professional development section. In doing so, they proposed language teacher research engagement as a supportive practice for professional development.
However, no initiative exists encouraging such an engagement except for projects carried out with English language teachers during Master‘s degree or some specific INSET programs (e.g. Atay, 2008). In this sense, language teacher research engagement has remained as an untouched issue in the context of education in Turkey. Before making an attempt, it may be necessary to investigate the teachers‘ current perceptions of and engagement in research. Borg (2009) suggests that gaining insight into the teachers ―attitudinal, conceptual, procedural, and institutional barriers to teacher research engagement… is essential … to make teacher research engagement a more feasible activity in ELT‖ (p. 358).
Thus, this paper sets out to investigate the teachers‘ current perceptions of and engagement in research which is supposed to provide with some insight into the
factors such as perceptions, knowledge, skills and experiences of teachers supporting or hindering their engagement in research.
1. 2. Problem
As the review of literature suggests, teachers‘ engagement in research is accepted as beneficial and facilitative for teaching and learning processes, and professional teacher development. In order to bridge the aforementioned gap between research and practice in English Language Teaching, we are to explore the current relationship between research and teachers within the given context.
1. 3. Aim
The aim of this study is to reveal the English Language Teachers‘ perceptions of and engagement in research in Edirne sample. In accordance with this aim, following research questions will be addressed:
RQ 1. What are the ELT teachers‘ conceptions of research?
1.1. What is research according to them?
1.2. What are the characteristics of good quality research according to them?
RQ 2. To what extent do ELT teachers say they read published research?
2.1. Do ELT teachers‘ demographic variables relate to the degree of reading published research they report?
2.2. When they read research, what are their reasons for reading? 2.3. When they read research, what sources do they prefer?
2.4. What impact do they believe this reading has on their teaching? 2.5. Where they do not read research, what reasons do they cite?
RQ 3. To what extent do ELT teachers say they do research?
3.1. Do ELT teachers‘ demographic variables relate to the degree of doing research they report?
3.3. When they do research, what types of research do they conduct? 3.4. Where teachers do not do research, what reasons do they cite?
RQ 4. What are the ELT teachers‘ perceptions of their institutional culture in
relation to research?
4.1. Do ELT teachers‘ demographic variables relate to the institutional culture they perceive?
4.2. How do these perceptions relate to ELT teachers‘ research engagement?
RQ 5. How do ELT teachers perceive the relationship of research and practice in the
field of English language teaching?
1. 4. Participants
The sample of this study consists of English language teachers in Edirne, Turkey. Therefore, it is worth mentioning the educational context in which these teachers work. Hereby brief information about the nature of educational system, pre-service and in-pre-service EFL training in Turkey will be described.
Education in Turkey is under the responsibility of Ministry of National Education (MoNE) at pre-school, primary and secondary levels. Educational institutes include public and private sector schools. Private sector schools include proprietary and foundation schools which can be called as colleges interchangeably. These schools are also under state control.
Primary education accepts children at six and lasts for eight years. This stage is compulsory for all Turkish citizens and free in public schools. At this stage, children learn basic literacy and numeracy skills and all subjects are taught in Turkish. English as a foreign language has been recently introduced as a school subject at the 4th grade at public schools. However, it is being taught at earlier grades in private schools.
Education continues with secondary stage which lasts for four years. Teaching English language is continued throughout this stage. On completion of this stage students may join university entrance exams administered by ÖSYM (Student Selection and Placement Center) throughout the country. Based on their exam results and grade-point average of the secondary level, students are placed at the higher education institutions. Higher education in Turkey is the responsibility of YÖK (The Council of Higher Education) (Higher Education Council, 2006).
Initial teacher training takes place at the higher education level and provided by faculties of education. Pre-service teacher training lasts for four years and includes subject matter, pedagogy and general knowledge instruction. The plan of the pre-service ELT training program decided by YOK is displayed in Appendix 1.
Throughout the program, trainees receive 175 hours‘ instruction in total, including 101 hours‘ subject matter instruction (57,71 %), 44 hours‘ pedagogy instruction (25,14 %) and 30 hours‘ general knowledge instruction (17,14 %). As can be seen in the table, trainees receive a ‗Research Skills‘ course for two hours a week in the fourth semester (See Appendix I). It is the only course dealing directly with research and it constitutes 1,14 % of the plan. After completing the program, trainees are awarded with a BA diploma and qualified as English language teachers.
In order to work in public schools, teachers take the KPSS (The Selection Examination for Professional Posts in Public Organizations) Group A- Teaching part. This exam consists of two sessions: one session for general knowledge and skills and one session for educational sciences. The test about educational sciences includes questions about educational psychology (developmental psychology, learning psychology, assessment and evaluation), curriculum development and teaching (curriculum development, teaching methods) and guidance. This test is administrated to all branches of teaching and do not include any section assessing research knowledge and skills. Based on their scores, the candidates are assigned as teachers at public schools.
Once assigned to the profession, professional development and continuing preparation of teachers are essentially provided by MoNE. In-service education programs are planned for a year and teachers generally choose up to three different programs per year. A sample in-service education program for English language teachers is enclosed in Appendix 2. As seen, this one-week program mainly deals with language skills teaching and classroom management and do not include a direct course about research.
1. 5. Significance
It is believed that the findings of this study will contribute to investigating the teachers‘ current perceptions of and engagement in research which will provide some insight into the factors such as perceptions, knowledge, skills and experiences of teachers supporting or hindering their engagement in research.
On the micro level, the evidence suggested by this research is supposed to provide informative local solutions for promoting research engagement by English language teachers in the given context. And, on the macro level, the results will be incorporated into the cumulative empirical data about language teacher research engagement being collected on the international basis.
1. 6. Assumptions
In this research study, it is assumed that responses to the questionnaire and interview questions reflect the real thoughts, beliefs, attitudes, perceptions and experiences of the participants.
1. 7. Limitations
This research study was limited with only voluntary English language teachers teaching in Edirne during the spring semester of 2010-2011 academic year.
As the sample of the research represents 73 percent of the population, the results may be generalized to the population of the study, but may not be necessarily generalized to teachers in different contexts.
Similarly, regarding the institutions of the participants, the results may be generalized to English language teachers working at Ministry of Education and, to some extent, teachers at private schools or colleges. However, they may not generalize to teachers teaching at higher education institutions such as state, private or foundation universities.
1. 8. Terms and concepts
English Language Teaching: It is used especially in Britain to refer to the
teaching of English as a second language or English as a foreign language. In North American usage this is often referred to as TESOL (Richards & Schmidt, 2002).
Evidence-based practice: Systematic use of research findings by
practitioners in an educational setting.
Teacher Belief Systems: In language teaching, they are the ideas and
theories that teachers hold about themselves, teaching, language, language learning and their students (Richards & Schmidt, 2002).
Teacher Cognition: A field of educational research and theory which
focuses on the thinking processes, beliefs, and decision-making used by teachers at various levels during the planning, delivery, and evaluation of teaching. Teacher behavior is seen as resulting from the thoughts, judgments, beliefs, and decisions employed by teachers, and such processes need to be understood in developing approaches to teacher research (Richards & Schmidt, 2002).
Teacher development: The professional growth a teacher achieves as a
result of gaining increased experience and knowledge and examining his or her teaching systematically (Richards & Schmidt, 2002).
Teacher research: A term to describe teacher-initiated investigations of their
own class-rooms, including action research. The notion of teacher research seeks to redefine the roles of teachers who are viewed as active investigators of learning and interaction within their own classrooms. Such a view is said to empower teachers (Richards & Schmidt, 2002).
1. 9. Abbreviations
EBP: Evidence-based practice ELT: English Language Teaching MoNE: Ministry of National Education
SPSS: Statistical Package for the Social Sciences BA: Bachelor‘s degree
CHAPTER 2
REVIEW OF LITERATURE
2. 1. ELT as a Scientific Discipline
When the paradigm shifts in the scientific fields are examined, it is seen that conducting systematic research in any field has led to reasonable development. Investigations into language teaching began to use scientific methods only after 1950s with a few experimental studies carried out on language teaching methods (see Agard & Dunkel, 1948 as one of the first major examples). Thus far, the studies were in the form of narratives of personal experiences and discussions of opinions (Stern, 1983). The first research-oriented journal Language Learning was launched by the English Language Institute at the University of Michigan in 1948. Furthermore, several language research centres were established in France, USA, and Britain. After then, in the sixties, quality of research gained importance along with policy
issues and method debate (Stern, 1983: 55). Language teaching for young learners
and immersion studies in Canada became current issues in those years, and they also set the examples for the exceptional systematic studies of the time. The focus of the research shifted to second language acquisition in the seventies. Consequently a growing body of research began to be collected cumulatively in language teaching literature.
2. 1. 1. Interdisciplinary Nature of ELT
Language teaching is basically thought to be positioned between the interrelations of three basic disciplines: linguistics, applied linguistics and pedagogy. When it comes to second and/or foreign language teaching, the complexity of the relations grows bigger as psychology, sociology and anthropology get involved in the process. Through the literature, different models of interactions have been proposed (Mackey, 1970; Strevens, 1976; Campbell, 1980; Spolsky, 1980; Ingram,
1980) from different departure points. Among them Campbell and Spolsky attempted to set the basic relationship between theory and practice while Mackey and Strevens emphasized the manipulating political, social and educational factors on the language teaching/learning context. Ingram‘s model was an illustration of learning-teaching process which permits direct feedback from the teacher to the theorist and vice versa (a relationship which had not been set by others). Besides them, Stern (1983) generated a comprehensive model for second language teaching with the purpose of serving teachers to better understand their standpoint in the context of language teaching. The model is displayed in Figure 1.
Figure 1: Stern’s general model for second language teaching (1983: 44)
Level 3: Practice Level 2: Interlevel Level 1: Foundations METHODOLOGY Objectives Content Procedures Materials Evaluation of outcomes ORGANIZATION
Planning and administration Primary
Secondary Higher education Teacher education Adult and informal
EDUCATIONAL LINGUISTICS THEORY ANDRESEARCH
Context
Learning Language Teaching
History of language teaching Linguistics Sociology, sociolinguistics, and anthropology Psychology and psycholinguistics Educational theory
Stern claimed that his model was based on four key concepts: language,
learning, teaching and context (1983: 48). He suggested that in order to formulate a
language teaching theory one must have ‗a theory of language‘ -supplied with linguistics, psycholinguistics, sociolinguistics, and the study of particular languages-, ‗a theory of language learning‟ -provided from educational psychology and psycholinguistics-, ‗a theory of teaching‟ -decided by educational pedagogy- and ‗a
given context‘ -which can be better evaluated with the contribution of sociology,
sociolinguistics and anthropology.
Thus, it can be inferred that second language teaching processes can be better understood if the relationships between two-arrowed lines, four key concepts and the three level of the model are discovered. Such a discovery is possible through a set of systematic investigations; in other words, through ‗research‘. This kind of research, to a great extent, will be interdisciplinary in nature by incorporating its‘ foundations from a variety of disciplines.
2. 1. 2. Research Methods in ELT
Considering its interdisciplinary nature, Stern (1983:59) defined research in language pedagogy as ‗a systematic study of questions or problems related to language teaching and learning‘ by adapting the definition of educational research to the context of language teaching. Furthermore he summarized the broad areas of language teaching as (p. 60):
1. The language learner and language learning processes; 2. The language teacher and teaching;
3. The environmental contexts of language teaching and learning; 4. The methodology and organization of language teaching;
5. Language in general and the languages and related cultures and societies; 6. Historical studies of language teaching.
After proposing the framework of the language teaching research, Stern (1983) touched upon the issue of conducting the appropriate methodology. Again considering the interdisciplinary nature of language teaching; he draws a conclusion which is worth citing here at length:
Broadly speaking, language teaching research, in the first instance, is educational research, and the principals and procedures of research in education and the behavioural sciences are applicable. … In the second place, language teaching research has certain specific characteristics which make it different from other educational research because its subject matter is language. Hence the research procedures of the language sciences are applicable. It is this interdisciplinary combination of language research with educational and behavioural research that gives language teaching research its unique characteristics and peculiar difficulties (p. 63).
As a result of its wide scope as mentioned above, research into language teaching makes use of various research methodologies. These methodologies are classified in various ways. The most common distinction is the qualitative vs quantitative (Mackey & Gass, 2005; Nunan, 1992; Punch, 2009). Nunan (1992) draws the distinction between them by suggesting that the qualitative studies deal with non-generalizable multiple case studies while the quantitative studies deal with generalizable multiple case studies.
Best & Kahn (2006) provided two other classifications: for the purposes of research and for the types of educational research. In terms of its purposes, research may appear as fundamental (basic) research, applied research and action research. On the other hand, educational research generally makes use of four different methodologies: historical research, descriptive research (quantitative), qualitative descriptive research and experimental research. They suggested that practically all studies fall under one, or a combination of these types (Best & Kahn; 2006; p. 24).
On the other hand, Razı (2010, p. 147) in his study, combines and classifies different research methods based on a major distinction between primary and secondary research. His classification of research with reference to a number of various researchers (Bell, 1993; Brown, 1988; Burns, 2005; Chaudron, 1988; Harklau, 2005; Hatch & Farhady, 1981; Lazarton, 2005; Mackey & Gass, 2005; Nunan, 1992 & 2005; van Lier, 2005) is demonstrated in the following figure.
Brown (1988) also categorizes research into two divisions in terms of the sources of information being used: secondary research and primary research. While the primary research is derived from the primary sources of information, secondary research is based on secondary sources. In other words, it can be concluded that in primary research, researcher gathers the data himself while secondary research uses research that has been conducted by someone else. Historical research, thus, may be cited as an example to secondary research.
In the context of English language teaching, primary research is derived from primary sources of information such as dealing with students who are learning the language. Brown (1988) additionally divides primary research into two subdivisions: case studies and statistical studies.
Case studies have been defined in different ways by different authors. Among them, Nunan (1992) described case studies as ―the investigation of [a] single
instance in the context in which it occurs‖ (p.79). For Brown & Rodgers (2002), case study research comprises an intensive study of the background, current status, and environmental interactions of a given social unit: an individual, a group, an institution, or a community‖. Brown (1988) asserted that these studies are usually
longitudinal as they follow this social unit/single instance over a relatively long period. Thus, Brown & Rodgers (2002) claimed that case studies are developmental studies.
Furthermore, Nunan & Bailey (2009) called case study as ‗hybrid‘ as it uses almost any data collection methods (p.157). In the categorization of Razı (2010) the data collection techniques used in case studies are listed as introspective techniques (thinkaloud techniques, anagram tasks, diaries/journals), and retrospective techniques. Talk-aloud techniques, stimulated-recall, immediate-recall, and verbal reporting (self-report, self-observation, and self-revelation) are given as further examples to data collection techniques used in case studies. Moreover, Razı (2010) claimed that case studies show resemblance to ethnography studies in the ways they collect data.
Harklau (2005) described ethnography as ‗the first-hand, naturalistic,
sustained observation and participation in particular social setting‟ (p. 179).
According to Watson-Gegeo (1988), it is ―a detailed description and analysis of a
social setting and interaction that goes on within it‖ (p.582) and ―includes the techniques of observation, participant observation, … informal and formal interviewing of the participants observed in situations, audio- or videotaping of interactions for close analysis, collection of relevant or available documents and other materials from the setting, and other techniques as required to answer researcher questions posed by a given study‖ (p.583).
Both case studies and ethnographic research can be regarded as qualitative methods of research due to the data collection methods they use. On the other hand, as Brown and Rodgers (2002) suggest statistical research “is based predominantly on
numerical data and consequently often referred to as quantitative” (p.12). Statistical
studies are ―basically cross-sectional in nature, considering a group of people as a
cross section of possible behaviours at a particular point or at several distinct points in time” (Nunan, 1992; p.8). Brown (1988) suggests that statistical analyses are used
in this method in order to ―estimate the probability, or likelihood, that the results did
not occur by chance alone‖ (p.3).
Both Brown (1988) and Razı (2010) subdivided statistical studies into two categories: survey studies and experimental studies. Survey studies are aimed at obtaining a snapshot of conditions, attitudes, opinions, characteristics, and/or events of an entire population at a single point in time by collecting data from a sample drawn from that population (Brown, 1988; Nunan & Bailey, 2009). Bell (1993) indicates that survey studies collect data through questionnaires, interviews and observations.
Jaeger (1988) draws the distinction between survey studies and experimental studies by indicating that surveys consist of collecting data on things or people without attempting to change anything whereas experiments are aimed at causing a change on the subjects. In experiments, the researcher(s) ―manipulate
certain stimuli, treatments, or environmental conditions and observe how the condition or behaviour of the subject is affected or changed‖ (Best & Kahn, 2006; p.
164).
Experimental studies may appear in different designs. Best & Kahn (2006) categorized these designs in accordance with the degree to which they eliminate or minimize threats to experimental validity: (1) Pre-experimental design (either no control group or no way of equating the groups that are used), (2)
Quasi-experimental design (provide control of when and to whom the measurement is
applied), (3) True experimental design (the equivalence of the experimental and control groups is provided by random assignment of subjects to experimental and control treatments).
Another research method which attempts to create a change is the action
research (which was previously mentioned in this chapter within the categorization
of research in terms of its purposes). Carr & Kemmis (1986) defined action research as ―a form of self-reflective enquiry undertaken by participants in order to improve
the rationality and justice of their practices, their understanding of those practices and the situations in which the practices are carried out‖ (p.162). Burns (2009)
describes the action research process as a spiral or cycle of movements between action and research as it involves respectively planning, undertaking actions to enhance the current situation, observing and documenting what happens as a result of these actions and reflecting the results on further action research.
Nunan (1992) notes that action research have components similar to other types of research such as posing questions, collecting data and then, analysing and/or interpreting those data. The difference of action research from the other research methods in the field of ELT is the centrality of language teacher as both the practitioner and the researcher. Through action research, teachers investigate their own local professional contexts. Thus, it is basically focused on immediate application, not on the development of theory or on generalization of applications (Best & Kahn, 2006).
Furthermore, Kemmis & McTaggart (1988, cited in Nunan & Bailey, 2009) identify three defining characteristics of action research: (1) it is carried out by classroom practitioners, (2) it is collaborative in nature, and (3) it is aimed at bringing about change.
So far, different categorizations of research methods in language teaching have been mentioned broadly and some specific characteristics of these methods have been described. The mentioned research methods can be applied either by researchers or teachers or by both groups collaboratively. However, in some cases researchers and teachers are assumed to be working separately (Block, 2000).
2.1. 3. The Gap between ELT Researchers and Teachers
In the field of language teaching –like any other educational context indeed- a lack of communication is diagnosed between researchers and teachers; and this lack has been concurrently identified as a ‗gap‘ to be filled between the theory and practice since the influential lecture of Hargreaves (1996). Clarke (1994) called this gap as ―theory practice dysfunction‖ resulted from the lack of synchrony between researchers and teachers. Throughout the literature, different reasons have been proposed for such a gap.
For instance, Crookes (1997) claimed that this lack of communication arises from different statuses of researchers and teachers. According to that claim, SLA researchers have relatively higher status than teachers as the researchers are the makers of knowledge which teachers are expected to use. Auerbach (1991) pointed at the same issue and invited teachers to involve in research practices:
Since the academy views teachers as less skilled workers and researchers as true professionals, we need to fight for a model that ties professionalism to what happens in the classroom … We need to fight for our
right to become teacher-intellectuals whose practice also informs the development of theory (p.7).
Similarly, Allison & Carey (2007) made use of the ‗feudalism‘ metaphor in order to criticize the power inequity between researchers and teachers. They defined researchers as lords and teachers as serfs within lines drawn for them by others and supported their criticism with a quotation of Bolitho:
As long as a hierarchical system is seen to operate, there will be those who make progress and those who don‟t. As long as applied linguists remain in universities and express themselves in terms of which teachers find difficult to understand, but somehow feel they ought to understand, as long as the rules for professional advancement are devised by academics so that training takes place on their territory and on their terms, teachers will continue to feel inferior. As long as teaching continues to be regarded as a lower-order activity, involving high stress, large numbers of contact hours and low pay, and as long as those involved in theory have visibly less of the first two and considerably more of the last-mentioned commodity, there will be imbalance in the profession (Bolitho, 1987; cited in Allison & Carey, 2007:63).
Ellis (1997) further advocates that the different discourses used by researchers and teachers create a conflict as both discourses represent different social world with different values, beliefs and attitudes and consequently lead to a lack of communication between two parties.
A number of suggestions have been made to bridge aforementioned gap. For example, Block (2000) discusses four ways proposed as a means closing the gap: (1) providing collaborative experiences for researchers and teachers, (2) encouraging teachers to conduct action research, (3) helping teachers to incorporate research into their classrooms through exploratory practice, and (4) mediating theory to teachers.
Despite the suggestions proposed so far the ―gap between theory and practice‖ remains a hot issue which needs further investigation before launching an initiative.
2.2. Language Teacher Research Engagement
Teacher research engagement is not a new phenomenon; discussions for involvement of teachers in research date back to the 1940s when the social psychologist Kurt Lewin has first coined the term ‗action research‘ in the USA. Later on, the issue was further discussed (still within the context of action research) by Stephen Corey. He emphasized the curative impact of research in practice by asserting that ―teachers, supervisors, and administrators would make better decisions
and engage in more effective practices if they, too, were able and willing to conduct research as a basis for those decisions and practices‖ (Corey 1953: 6).
After a long pause, teacher research engagement came to the fore again in the 1970s, but this time, as a revolutionary movement in education in the UK with the influential works of Stenhouse (1975, 1981) and Elliot (1991). While working basically on curriculum development, Stenhouse ―…identified a curriculum bridging
the gap between research and practice as a particular form of specification about the practice of teaching … it is a way of translating any educational idea into a hypothesis testable in practice. It invites critical testing rather than acceptance‖
(1975: 42). He supported his view in his later work by arguing ―It is teachers who in
the end will change the world of school by understanding it‖ (Stenhouse 1981: 104).
Similarly, Elliot (1991) asserted that the teachers-as-researchers movement in England was actually a teacher-initiated activity against differentiated educational system. By giving examples from his own teaching context in a secondary modern school, he explained how action research improved their educational practice and led to an educational change.
In parallel with the movement in the UK, Donald Schön made a remarkable contribution to the understanding of the theory and practice of learning in the USA. While discussing the importance of reflection in professional life; he valued practical competence and professional artistry in all disciplines and assigned a more active and productive role to the practitioners in all fields. He clarifies this role with his statement:
―The practitioner … reflects on the phenomenon before him, and on
the prior understandings which have been implicit in his behaviour. He carries out an experiment which serves to generate both a new understanding of the phenomenon and a change in the situation‖ (Schön 1983: 68).
Schön‘s work on reflective practice inspired many training and education programmes for teachers. The value attached to practitioners‘ understanding of their own teaching context through research further increased in the educational community with the writings of Cochran-Smith and Lytle (1993) and Hargreaves (1996) which proposed an increased involvement of teachers in research. In his lecture at The Teacher Training Agency (TTA), Hargreaves (1996) examined the roles of teachers in educational research and criticized most of the research for being
irrelevant to practice. These voices received quick and plentiful responses, either
positive or negative, which led ‗the theory-practice gap‘ to become a hot issue. The role of teachers as practitioners and the partners of educational research redefined. Ellis and Castle evaluate this change as a paradigm shift in education:
“… This approach to research in which teachers are the researchers represents a paradigm shift in educational research from teacher as consumer of research to teacher as researcher. This shift and the increasing frequency and thoughtfulness by which teacher research is currently being done have resulted in a quiet revolution in education …” (Ellis and Castle
The movement in the UK continued with a number of funded initiatives encouraging teachers to become more research-engaged and/or conduct their own research. The Teacher Research Grant Pilot Scheme launched in 1996 by the Teacher Training Agency (TTA) and the Best Practice Research Scholarships introduced in 2000 funded by Department for Education and Skills (DfES) may well be listed among these attempts. Other examples include the Support for Success action research projects administered through the Learning and Skills Development Agency (LSDA), the Research Associate Scheme of the National College for School Leadership (NCSL), and a Research Associate Scheme managed by the Centre for Excellence in Leadership (CEL) (Barker, 2005).
Not long after teacher research engagement issue began to appear in the literature on English language teaching context. Allwright & Bailey (1991) discriminated such an engagement from other types of research due to its focus on classroom. They considered classroom as a cultural entity and thus associated language classroom research with anthropology in some ways, where researchers attempt to investigate what is going on in particular social or cultural settings (p.1).
At this point, in order to have a better understanding of the teacher-research engagement, the scope and direction of such as an engagement is necessary to be defined. It should be recognized that using research findings and doing research are different stances to research. Thus, like many other authors in the literature (Everton et al., 2000, 2002; Barker, 2005; Borg, 2007d, 2009), it would be wise to follow the distinction drawn by the National Teacher Research Panel between engagement with (using) and engagement in (doing) research.
2.2.1. Engagement in Research
Various labels have been given to the teachers‘ engagement in research by doing it actually; practitioner research, action research, exploratory practice, teacher research, and classroom research are some of the examples of these labels in the
literature. Bailey (2001; 491) attempted to clarify the most confused ones by stating ―the term classroom research refers to the location and focus of the study. Teacher
research refers to the agents who conduct the study. Action research denotes a
particular approach.‖ He further illustrates the boarders of each on the Figure 3.
Figure 3: Classroom research, Action Research, and Teacher Research (Bailey 2001: 491)
Among the appointed numbers 1 indicates classroom research conducted by teachers using approaches other than action research; 2 stands for research conducted by teachers outside of classrooms using approaches other than action research; 3 represents action research conducted by teachers outside of classrooms; and 4 draws the borders for classroom research conducted by teachers using the action research approach. Teacher Research 1. . 4. . 2. 3. Action Research Conducted in Classrooms Classroom Research
Nunan & Bailey (2009) proposed a similar but more detailed framework for the definitions of classroom research, teacher research and action research (Table 1).
Table 1: Comparing classroom research, teacher research, and action research (Nunan & Bailey, 2009, p. 19)
Type of research
What Who Why
Classroom Research
Investigations carried out in classrooms utilizing a range of qualitative and
quantitative methods of data collection and analysis
University-based researchers, graduate students, and/or teachers To generate insights and understanding, to test hypotheses, to generate theory, and/or to produce outcomes that can be generalized
Teacher Research
Investigations carried out in or out of classrooms, utilizing a range of
qualitative and quantitative methods of data collection and analysis
Teachers To improve practice, and/or to generate insights and understanding to related practice and theory Action Research A cyclical process of identifying practical problems or challenges, formulating a plan for addressing them, taking action, evaluating the results, and planning subsequent rounds of investigation Participants in a setting, including teachers (sometimes in collaboration with others) To improve one‘s own practice, to solve problems, and/or to satisfy curiosity
In this study, the teachers‘ engagement in research is defined with teacher research as this definition does not limit the research to certain methods and/or contexts. With a similar understanding, Borg, in his state-of-the-art article on language teacher research engagement, (2010; 395) defines teacher research as:
―… a systematic inquiry, qualitative and/or quantitative, conducted by
teachers in their own professional contexts, individually or collaboratively (with other teachers and/or external collaborators), which aims to enhance teachers‟ understandings of some aspect of their work, is made public, has the potential to contribute to better quality teaching and learning in individual classrooms, and which may also inform institutional improvement and educational policy more broadly.‖
In the same article, Borg (2010; p. 402) summarizes the potential benefits of teacher research proposed in the literature. According to different authors, teacher research:
develop teachers‘ capacity of autonomous professional judgments (Lankshear & Knobel, 2004);
reduces teachers‘ feelings of frustration and isolation (Roberts ,1993);
allows teachers to move out of a submissive position and be curriculum innovators (Gurney, 1989);
allows teachers to become more reflective, critical, and analytical about their teaching behaviours in the classroom (Atay, 2006);
makes teachers less vulnerable to and less dependent on external answers to the challenges they face (Donato, 2003);
fosters connections between teachers and researchers (Crookes, 1993);
He also refers to the six benefits proposed by Olson (1990: 17-18). According to Olson, teacher research:
reduces the gap between research findings and classroom practice;
creates a problem-solving mindset that helps teachers when they consider other classroom dilemmas;
increases the professional status of teachers;
helps empower teachers to influence their own profession at classroom, district, state, and national levels;
offers the overriding and ultimate advantage of providing the potential for improving the additional process.
It seems teacher research is believed to have a great potential to bring positive changes in teachers, their classrooms and schools. Despite all the benefits listed so far, the literature suggests that teachers‘ engagement in research remains a minority activity due to some unfavourable conditions (Borg, 2007, 2009).
2.2. 2. Engagement with Research
The concept of the ―teachers‘ engagement with research‖ defines teachers as readers and users of research. The rationale for such an engagement is based on the argument proposing that when teachers engage with and in research and make pedagogical decisions informed by sound research evidence, this will have a beneficial effect on both teaching and learning (Hargreaves, 2001). Following this rationale, a number of authors in the literature suggested making teaching an evidence-based profession (e.g. Davies, 1999; Elliot, 2002; Thomas & Pring, 2004).
In the field of language teaching, Perry (2005) supports this argument proposing that teachers ‗and others on whom research in applied linguistics has an
impact need to be able to understand it to the point where they are able to evaluate recommendations based on such research‘ (p. xi).
However, investigations into the sources of research information revealed that teachers are not that much engaged with scientific research (Williams & Coles, 2007; Shkedi (1998). In order to enhance teachers‘ engagement in research Borg (2010) sets four prerequisites: (1) teachers have access to published research; (2) teachers
want to read published research; (3) teachers need to read published research; and (4) teachers have the time to read such material (p. 410).
Apart from these prerequisites, there seems to be a number of barriers preventing teachers to become engaged with research such as lack of time (Borg, 2009), physical and conceptual inaccessibility of research results (Hemsley-Brown and Sharp, 2003), teachers‘ negative attitudes to research (Williams & Coles, 2007), etc. Teachers engagement both in and with research seems possible provided the facilitative conditions encouraging teachers.
2.2. 3. Conditions for Teacher Research
As the review of literature so far suggested, very significant and desirable developments have been made in teacher-research movement. However, empirical investigations into the issue highlighted the fact that teacher research engagement remains minority (Borg 2007, 2009).
According to the impression of Hancock (2001) the great majority of classroom teachers remain uninvolved in research as they shy away from seeing themselves as researchers and they are reluctant to write about their teaching practice (p. 119). He offers four areas of explanation for a better understanding of the basis of this teacher reluctance: (1) teachers‟ status, (2) teachers‟ working conditions, (3)
teachers‟ confidence, and (4) the difficulties that teachers experience when they try to integrate outsider research methodologies into their day-to-day practice (p.120).
Then, he identified four areas of difficulty that results in lack of enthusiasm for classroom-based research. For him, ‗the lack of expectation that teachers should
research and write about their professional practice‟, ‗the demanding nature of teaching which leaves little time and every for research‟, ‗the current lack of professional confidence and marginalisation of teachers from government change agendas‟, and ‗the mismatch between many available research methodologies and
teachers‟ professional ways of working in classrooms‘ cause teachers to remain
uninvolved in research (p. 127).
Borg (2006) asserted that teacher research is clearly not a widespread activity in the field of English language teaching. Grounding his ideas on the literature and his own experience of promoting and supporting research with language teachers, he suggested ten conditions that may affect the incidence of teacher research: (1) awareness, (2) motivation, (3) knowledge and skills, (4) choice, (5) mentoring, (6) time, (7) recognition, (8) expectation, (9) community, and (10) dissemination potential. He believed that the more of them are met, the more likely it is that teacher research take place (p. 23).
In a more recent work Borg (2010) identified three main domains influencing teacher engagement in research: the workplace, the teacher, and the
project (Table 2) and he suggested that ‗the prevalence of engagement in research by
language teachers is shaped by the multiple interactions of factors across all three domains (p. 419).
Apart from the conditions set for the language teachers‘ engagement in research, Borg (2010) further offers conditions enhancing teachers‘ engagement with research. He concludes that ‗teachers are more likely to be willing to engage with research and use it to explore and inform their practice when it is accessible – physically, conceptually, linguistically and practically- credible, useable, and
interesting‘ (p. 419).
It can be concluded that teachers‘ engagement in and with research depends on a number of psychological, sociological, attitudinal, conceptual and contextual factors. An awareness of these factors will play an important role if it is aimed to promote language teacher research engagement.
Table 2: Conditions for teacher research (Borg, 2010: 419-420)
Workplace Conditions.
Teacher Engagement in research is more likely when their workplace is characterized by the following:
Time for teachers to do research
Resources (including access to research reports or summaries, and funding, where necessary)
Positive attitudes to teacher professional development
An expectation that staff engage in professional development
An awareness of the value of teacher research engagement
An open, trusting culture
A collaborative ethos
Incentives for teachers to be research-engaged
The support of the management for teachers‘ efforts to be research-engaged
A commitment to give teacher research a high profile within the school
A desire to use teacher-generated research evidence for school improvement
Opportunities for staff to be engaged in research
A culture of enquiry
An openness to change
Recognition for teachers‘ attempts to engage in research
A genuine interest in the outcomes of teacher research Teacher conditions.
Teacher engagement in research is more likely when teachers have the following attributes:
Positive attitudes to professional development generally
Appropriate conceptions of what teacher research is
An awareness of their potential as knowledge generators
Motivation to begin and sustain a teacher research project
Relevant knowledge and skills for doing teacher research
A willingness to take risks
The confidence not to feel threatened by the revelatory nature of teacher research
Openness and a desire to collaborate with others in being research-engaged
Socio-economic stability, including good working conditions
Previous positive experience of engagement in research Project conditions.
Teacher engagement in research is more likely when the projects in which they participate are:
Relevant, to the teachers‘ working context, professional goals and specific classroom concerns
Feasible, given the time and resources available
Structured, to give the activity a clear sense of purpose and direction
Supported, by a more expert mentor
Voluntary, so that teachers determine the focus of their work
Democratic, so that teachers determine the focus of their work
Collaborative, involving work with peers (and learners)
Pedagogical, in orientation
Shared, through various forms of dissemination
Concrete, in terms of its outcomes
2.3. Relevant Research
Along with the studies appreciating the marriage of two sides; ―research‖ and ―practice‖ as outlined below, some research especially focused on the ―teacher side‖ of this occasion. The rationale for such study stems from an understanding that if we are to invite teachers to the effective use of research in their professional practice, the first step to make informed decisions about feasibility of the process is to understand the teachers‘ current conceptions, attitudes, knowledge, skills, and practices. There have been more examples of such studies in education generally than specifically in ELT context. After mentioning the studies outside ELT briefly, available empirical research into the English language teachers' current position in research engagement will be discussed.
Zeuli and Tiezzi made a set of investigations into teachers‘ beliefs about educational research through their study with 13 teachers. At the first step, in order to find out the teachers‘ beliefs about the influence of research on their practice, the researchers invited the teachers to respond to three vignettes which supposed to be reflecting either direct impact, indirect impact, or no impact (Zeuli & Tiezzi, 1993). The teachers‘ responses revealed conflicts: on the one hand, they most frequently preferred the direct impact of research which provides practical ideas for their immediate teaching context; on the other they reflect scepticism towards research results. They also overlooked the value in studying and/or conducting research themselves for criticising or testing research results. The implication drawn from the study was that the teachers generally hold misconceptions about educational research and in order to facilitate research use in practice, sources of these misconceptions are to be identified.
In a subsequent study with the same participants, Zeuli (1994) moved on to search for the teachers‘ definitions of research and further explored how they respond to research reports when they read them, as referred previously. The conclusion drawn from the study was that teachers did not read research and were more interested in the product than the underlying process when they read it. This
conclusion was in a way supportive of the previous research. Thus in a later publication (Tiezzi & Zeuli, 1994), the researchers used the same data to control the longitudinal changes in teachers‘ beliefs about research in a master‘s course about classroom research in which four of the participants in the previous studies attended. Through the course it was aimed at broadening teachers‘ beliefs about educational research, providing necessary key skills for teachers to examine it and helping them to make links between their own questions and those of educational research. The data indicates that ―three of the four teachers improved their understanding of educational research‖(p. 26) over the ten-week course.
Shkedi (1998) attempted to investigate the nature of encounter between teachers and research literature through a case survey and case studies in Israel with 47 participants (most of whom are experienced teachers). In the survey part of the study, the researcher conducted a questionnaire in order to find out the professional literature the teachers read (if exist), the motives turning teachers to research literature, barriers preventing teachers from reading research literature, teachers‘ reactions to research findings reflecting opposite views and the teachers‘ understandings of research. Then, the study continued with two case studies (chosen as representative out of 20 cases) for a depth analysis of the questions. The conclusion drawn from the study is that teachers do not prefer reading educational literature, and when they read, they focus on the practical implications applicable in their classrooms. Thus he concluded his work emphasizing the potential of qualitative research approach ‗to create relevant professional communication for and
among teachers‘ (p.576).
Everton et al. (2000, 2002) analysed the findings of a TTA questionnaire in order to find out teachers‘ views of research and the value they attached to it. They received 302 responses to the first distribution of the survey (2000) and 270 to the second of the same format; they combined the total sample of 572 for the analysis of the data. (2002) They reported that ―teachers do value research, but only if they can
