A Quibble or Two

With Nunan's Ideas on Action Research

Stephen Kemmis (2007) has said that, "Action research aims at

changing three things: practitioners' practices, their understanding of their

practices, and the conditions in which they practice. These three things--

practices, how we understand them, and the conditions that shape them--

are inevitably and incessantly bound together with each other." As a

language teacher, I realize that what I teach, how I perceive my teaching,

and the environment in which I teach are all constantly interacting with each

other. So for me, the major concern about action research is how to

effectively observe what is happening in my classes without stepping away

from my central role as teacher--how to in fact be both teacher and

researcher at one time. David Nunan's (1990) Action research in the

language classroom does an admirable job of providing me with some ideas

on how to do just that.

Nunan focuses not on a particular teacher or a particular classroom,

but on an in-service program designed to give teachers the basic skills they

need to implement action research for themselves. The participants are

part of the AMEP program, which, due to its large student population and

heterogeneous student make-up, uses, "a localized or school-based

curriculum model based on a learner-centered philosophy." (Nunan, 1990)

The teachers are the main drivers of the curriculum within their schools and

the in-service training aims to, "provide teachers with skills in curriculum

development and classroom research and evaluation." (ibid.) Each in-

service participant prepared for the program by recording 15 minutes of a

lesson in which they were trying something new or in which some problems

or difficulties arose.

The in-service action research was composed of five stages. The

first stage consisted of observing a classroom and becoming aware of how

participants own, "preconceptions and beliefs" were carried into the

classroom. The middle stages helped participants to develop the skills they

needed to use and modify observational tools, to identify issues which were,

"amenable to investigation," and to practice evaluating their own classroom.

In the final stage of the in-service, participants developed a question which

they could carry forward and use to implement action research in their own

classes.

The clear way in which Nunan describes each step of the in-service

makes the article not only interesting as a kind of case study of one teacher-

training program but also useful as a point by point outline that any teacher

can use as the basis for implementing action-research within their own

schools. I was especially impressed with the efforts the in-service, and

hence the article itself, made to ensure that participants were aware of how

attitudes and beliefs can impact the way in which we carry out observation.

Developing this higher awareness, thinking of the 'why' of your beliefs, while

simultaneously putting those beliefs into practice by doing the 'what' of

teaching, is the difference between being just a thoughtful teacher and

being an actively reflective teacher.

The way Nunan explains how groups evaluated the observed

lessons and the examples he chose from each group highlights the

difference of opinions and the lively negotiation that must have been going

on during the in-service. For example, when one group identified, 'lesson

cohesion' as a lesson quality they most liked, and another group stated that

the very same observed lesson had, "no cohesion", (ibid.) it becomes quite

clear that teachers had to contend with the fact that what they saw in a

lesson was not always what was noticed by another observer. The

contrasting opinions and differing points of reference between teachers

allows Nunan to make a strong implicit argument for the benefits of action

research with a collaborative component.

The article provides an excellent way for teachers to familiarize

themselves with action-research, but I do have one quibble: running

throughout the article there does seems to be an underlying assumption

that there is in fact a way to teach which could be considered, "good

teaching." For example, when teachers evaluated the sample lesson by

writing down the three points they liked the best and three points they

didn't like, Nunan writes that, "most groups liked the use of authentic

materials. This led to an animated discussion on why authentic materials

were considered good." While this was perhaps enjoyable for those

engaged in the discussion, I don't think it would lead anyone to reexamine

their values or beliefs. Similarly, the "Task Analysis" observation tool

contains the point, "The activities were challenging but not threatening" to

be judged on a four point scale where 1 is, "not at all" and 4 is "completely."

I can think of some instances where a whiff of a threat--to personal identity,

belief systems or a host of other factors--might be important to an English

lesson and student development.

I wonder if the 'like/don't like' and 'not at all/completely' type of

dichotomy might not work better if both aspects of the dichotomy where

framed in such a way as being useful to different learners in different

situations. For example, while teachers might personally like and be

invested in using 'authentic materials', this does not necessarily mean that

authentic materials are inherently good. By placing 'authentic materials'

and 'controlled materials' on opposite sides of a scale, teachers would move

"beyond black and white ratings," and be less constricted in what tool and

methodologies they viewed as useful for their classroom (Fanselow, 2012).

But perhaps I am just missing the forest for the trees. The point of the

article was not to present a set of concrete principles about teaching, but to

give points which could guide a teachers as they moved toward

implementing action research themselves. And in this, the article succeeds

quite well.

By keeping the focus of the article on one group of teachers and the

way in which they grew in awareness to the point that they could develop a

serious research question to tackle in their own classrooms, the article

helped me realize that my own, earlier anxiety about action research was

perhaps unfounded. Implementing action research, it seems, does not have

to turn a teacher into a distanced observer, holding a part of themselves

back. Instead, action research can help a teacher become more aware of

how they are already observing themselves and what is going on in their

own classes; it allows teachers to focus not on problems, but on solutions

waiting to be found. Now I can see that action research will not take me out

of the moment of teaching, but instead, help me be aware of that moment

at a higher level.

Sources:

Kemmis, S. (2007), "Action Research As a Practice-Changing Practice."

Opening Address for the Spanish Collaborative Action Research Network

Conference, University of Valladolid. Retrieved 17 January, 2011 from

http://www.infor.uva.es/~amartine/MASUP/Kemmis_2007.pdf

Nunan, D. (1990). "Action research in the language classroom." In J. Richards

& D. Nunan (Eds.). Second Language Teacher Education (pp.62-81).

Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Fanselow, J. (29 April, 2011). "Beyond black and white ratings." You Call

Yourself a Teacher, Peace Corps Worldwide. Retrieved 17 January 2011 from

http://peacecorpsworldwide.org/teaching/2011/04/29/beyond-black-and-

white-ratings/