Action Research Gertrude's Book

i ~ I . i ; I ; I.' ,

I', 1 i' ~ ;.f I f I I': I t It

Action Research • In

English Language Teaching

(j)edication

rrhis wor{ is dedicated to a[{ tlie liard-working teacliers 0/ r£ng[isli as a second! foreign fanguage in J-fong 'ICong whose good wor/t is seftfom recognized

or rewarded. I 1

i v "

Action Research • In

English Language Teaching

Edited by Gertrude Tinker Sachs

Department of English and Communication City University of Hong Kong

~~--- ~-------~----------------------------------.

First published in 2002 by City University of Hong Kong, 83 Tat Chee Avenue, Kowloon, Hong Kong.

ISBN: 962-442-227-3

Copyright © 2002 City University of Hong Kong.

All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced or transmitted in any fonn or by any Ineans, electronic, or mechanical, including photocopy, recording, or any information storage and retrieval system, without permission from the publisher.

A UGC funded Project "Fostering and Furthering Effective Practices in the

Teaching of English"

Cover designed by Lau Kwok Wai, Form 7 student ofSKH Tsang Shui Tim

Secondary School.

Printed in Hong Kong.

~ n ~ :1 !i

Contents

Acknowledgements

Preface

Introduction

Collaborative Action Research: An Australian Experience Anne Burns

Fostering and Furthering Effective and Investigative Practices. Gertrude Tinker Sachs

Framing Action Research Gertrude Tinker Sachs

Group Work in Grmnmar Teaching Monica Wong

Adopting Process Writing PheonNg

Developing Reciprocal Teaching in a Reading Class Jassar Foo

Promoting Active Reading Nancy Chan

Controversy against Consensus Tam Leung Yen Ying Anne

Interactive Grammar Lessons Joan Chan

Useful Action Research References

Page

vi

vii

7

23

67

87

115

133

171

199

225

241

· .~ I't.:".t ",'

vi

Acknowledgements

This book would not have been possible without the generous financial support of the University Grants Committee (UCG).

Special thanks to our research support team whose com~itment, overtime and professionalism as well as friendship made the Journey so much more interesting and bearable. These wonderful people are Sandy Shum (1998 - 2000), Angela Leung (1998 - 2000) and last but by no means least, Angel Lau (2000 - 2002). I also w.ish to thank my former MATESOL student and part-time research aSSIstant, Peter Lo, who located documents for the literature review.

Anything that is worth doing needs the support of ~ignificant .others and I wish to thank my colleagues, Anne Bums m Austraha and Kathleen Bailey in the United States. Professor Anne Burns visit~d from Australia and spent time in classes and in workshops WIth teachers. Her contribution at our symposirun is featured in our first chapter. Professor Kathleen Bailey took time t? r~ad the manuscript and provided us with detailed comments and editonal support. We are indebted to these two women who have supported us at different stages of this venture.

To the teacher participants whose work is featured in this b?ok, we say congratulations, you have weathered the storm and survIved the journey and "Here it is!" Many thanks to your principals and students who made this work possible.

Gertrude Tinker Sachs

Project Leader and Principal Investigator

vii

Preface

The title of our project, upon which this book is based is "Fostering and Furthering Effective Practices in the Teaching of English". The key operative words, "Fostering" and "Furthering," suggest that effective practices in the teaching of English as a second/foreign language already exist in Hong Kong and that where these good practices exist they could be extended through furthering. Fostering, on the other hand, denotes development for those classroom sites where good practices are not so conspicuous.

Participants from three secondary schools and one tertiary level institution in Hong Kong adopted an action research paradigm to investigate their practices. The process of inquiring into the teacher developmental process through action research was a journey that was found to be problematic and time-consuming due to pressing teaching and curriculum demands. However, all the teacher researchers agreed that the process was worth the struggle and though some of them said they would not do it again, they agreed it was worth doing. They found professional recognition, growth and development and most of all, saw the benefits that were derived from their action research with their students.

It is hoped that the educators and all those concerned with education who read this book would find it an inspirational vehicle for fostering and furthering the career-long developlnent of themselves and those in their spheres of influence.

Introduction

In an interview with Anne Bums on action research (AR) in Australia and whose work is featured in our first chapter, one of the questions asked by the writer was how did AR compare to other forms of teacher professional development. In her answer, Professor Bums said,

Compared with workshops, where infonnation is simply being handed down to teachers to disseminate, this is a more fundamental way of working with teachers in that they are taking real issues and real problems. in their classrooms and they are bringing them to a collaborative group and what they discover is that their problems and their issues are by no means isolated. We have to move away from the isolationist view of both teaching and teacher education because it's the collaborative elements which seem to lnake huge changes for people and allow them to lnodify and renew their practice. The other aspect is what happens when teachers begin to talk about their own practice. It's immensely affinning so there is a very strong sense of feeling empowered, feeling your work is valued, feeling you've been listened to, and feeling you have some recognition for your work as a teacher. (Tinker Sachs, 1999)

Professor Bums' comment has identified some of the key elements that correlate with effective curriculum change. These are collaboration, personal engagement and a sense of satisfaction which stem from engaging in something that is both meaningful and important to the participant. The chapters in this book describe the development and enactment of the processes of action research and give potential action researchers a solid reference for developing and conducting their own AR agendas.

2 Action Research in EL T

The AR journeys of university-based researchers and several teacher-researchers are described, in their own words, in this book. Through varying degrees of external and internal school collaboration and high levels of personal engagement, we all gained a great deal of satisfaction and professional pride from our AR work. This book is the result of our combined efforts.

In our first chapter we begin with Anne Burns offering key insights from her ten years of collaborative action research work with her colleagues in the Adult Migrant English Program (AMEP) in Australia. Bums highlights and illustrates SOlne of the major phases in developing their AR projects. Her illustrations include reflections from her peers about the content of their work and their participation on the projects. Bums' summaries are helpful for those who are interested in developing AR projects with a large number of participants.

From Australia, we move to our main context, Hong Kong, and the second chapter describes how project leader, Gertrude Tinker Sachs, went about setting up and carrying out the project, the results of which are featured in this book. Tinker Sachs offers a critical commentary on the status of AR in Hong Kong and then re-visits the principle phases, struggles and triumphs in carrying out an AR project with a small number of teacher-researchers from different teaching

contexts.

In Chapter 3 Tinker Sachs provides a framework for developing an AR project through a brief review of the history of AR. She continues with a critique of some of the main issues affecting the status of AR in the educational field and she offers a rationale for rising above these issues to develop ourselves professionally and enrich our knowledge base in education. Tinker Sachs also reviews the key processes in developing and carrying out AR projects.

Chapters 4-9 are devoted to the teacher-researchers' reports. Monica Wong, in Chapter 4, illustrates some of the dilemmas of organising group activities to change pupils' negative perceptions towards the teaching and learning of grammar. Wong adopted a cooperative learning task-based approach for helping her Form I low proficiency

Introduction 3

students learn grammar items. Her AR journey is one filled with reflective decision-making. "

In Chapte~ 5, Pheon Ng shares her special concerns of adopting a process-on~nted approach to develop her form two students' writing. She descnbes her challenges in changing her controlling teacher-centred practice to one which allows students greater freedom to express their ideas without too much teacher assigned language support.

Jassar ~oo in Chapter 6, explores the impact of reciprocal teaching of .readmg comprehension strategies in her form 6 class. Using Palmcsar an.d Brown's 19~4 model of reciprocal teaching of reading comprehensIOn, F 00 descnbes how she helped her students cope with the ?emands of the examination syllabus through the adoption of readl~g comprehension strategies through teacher modeling and peer teachmg.

In Chap:e~ 7, Nan~y Cha~ is concerned with developing her form 2 students mterest In readIng. She believes that this can be done thr~ugh well-designed activities and carefully constructed questions WhlC~ promote pupils' personal response and engagement. Chan descnbes ho~ her action research project succeeded in accomplishing these goals wIth her low achieving students.

Anne Tam, in Chapter 8, explores enhancing her sixth formers' debatin~ skills in ~rder to improve their oral proficiency skills in preparatIOn for theIr public examinations. She felt that their oral dis~ussions "lacked variety and richness" and set out to develop an actIOn ~e~earch pr~ject that incorporated elements of cooperative and cOmpe~ItIve learnmg through conflict, controversy and conflict resolutIOn. She details the procedures and results of her students' debates.

In Chapter 9 Jo~n Cha~ also has an interest in making her grammar lessons more InteractIve. She adopted a cooperative learning theme~based approach for her class. Working with her group of low profiCIency Form I students, Chan documents how she and her students went through the process of gathering data to produce a class newsletter.

1 I I

I I :~

I " ~

4 Action Research in ELT

From the teacher-researchers' perspectives we can see in these chapters that the journey of action research is a long and challengi~g series of events. However, what is outstanding about all the reports IS

the quest of all the teachers to improve their professional expertise in order to increase student learning. Teaching, without AR is not easy, but with AR, it is even more difficult but it is bound to bring greater professional and personal satisfaction because we are testing our hypotheses and decision-making in a systematic, informed and

reflective manner.

Most approaches to teacher development are steeped in short-cut measures which are usually knowledge and/or skills-based. While these approaches are useful in and of themselves, they do very little to reach teachers in personal and meaningful ways. The level of engagement is low and the carry-over to the classroom is at most, limited and non-lasting. Classroom-based teacher development (CBTD) on the other hand, puts the onus of responsibility on the teachers to develop themselves within their own teaching contexts where they are actively involved in both teaching and learning simultaneously (Thiessen, 1992). Through action research, classroom-based teacher development can be enhanced.

We conclude our book with a list of useful references and contacts for eaders interested in furthering their knowledge and appreciation of action research. Indeed, if you believe in self-improvement and self-empowerment, you have made an excellent choice by selecting

Action Research.

Best Wishes and have a fruitful AR Journey.

Gertrude Tinker Sachs

Introduction 5

Terms Used throughout this Book

Banding of Schools

Secon~ary schools in Hong Kong are classified according to the allocatIOn of students from primary 6 or grade 6. At the end of primary 6, pupils are assigned to different secondary schools on the basis of t~eir performance in selected school subjects (Chinese and MathematIcs). Students with the highest scores are allocated to the top band 1/2 schools and those with the middle and lowest scores are allocat~d to the middle 3, or lowest banding schools, band 4/5 respectIvely. Recently, the government has reduced the number of bands from 5 to 3.

School Forms

Forms are equivalent to the grade system in other countries. Pupils in Form 1 are usually between the ages of 11-12 or equivalent to grade 7; Form 2, 13-14 year olds or grade 8 and so on.

References

Palincsar, A.S .. and Br~wn, A.L. (1984). Reciprocal teaching of comprehenslOn-fostenng and comprehension-monitoring activities. Cognition and Instruction, 1(2), 117-175.

Thiessen, D. (1992). Classroom-based teacher developlnent. In A. Hargreaves and M.G. Fullan (Eds.), Understanding teacher development (pp. 85-109). London, England: Cassell.

Tinker Sachs, G. (1999). Action research files: An interview with Anne Bums. Networks: An On-line Journal of Teacher Research. Toronto, Canada: OISE, University of Toronto. http://www.oise.utoronto.ca/ ... ctd/networks/contributorNotes.html

Collaborative Action Research: An Australian Experience 1

Anne Burns

Preamble

As a TESOL teacher-practitioner I have found action research to be particularly relevant to my needs. The action research model is probably the most versatile method of research for a teacher, and for me it includes the deveJopnlent of both research skills and teaching expertise. It allows for a systematic examination of the effects of teaching practice but at the same time can change direction in response to emerging needs, thus promoting teacher and learner satisfaction. Importantly, it can be self-managed by the teacher.

Collaborative action research is a concept for me which exponentially increases the value of the cyclical research process. My experience of the benefits of collaborative action research involved a group of my peer TESOL teachers and two researchers who coordinated the process. This group of teachers working in varying situations and with learners at different stages of learning had identified the teaching of disparate learner groups as a common issue for investigation. Collectively, we provided a rich and diverse base of experience and knowledge for each individual teacher to draw upon. This placed our individual projects into a broader context without endangering their unique nature. It also

I·


assisted the initial planning process in the action research cycle. Observations of classroom events and situations w~en described to the group were reviewed through the multIple perspectives of all the individuals in the group. This provided me with the opportunity to consider issues which were not immediately clear to me and helped to inform the planni~g and action parts of the research cycle (Bums, Hood, Lukm and McPherson, 1996, p.24).

Pam McPherson, quoted above, is an Australian teacher who works in the Adult Migrant English Program (AMEP). This is a national program funded by the Commonwealth Government to provide settlement English as a Second Language (ESL) courses for adult immigrants within their first three years in Australia. Pam was one. of the 28 teachers with whom I worked in 1995/96 in a collaboratIve classroom-based action research project investigating curriculum development for diverse learner groups.

Her remarks highlight some of the key questions that seem currently to concern the notion of teacher research. Questions such as: How feasible is it for teachers to do research? What do teachers gain from doing research? What are the constraints and what kinds of support do teachers need to do research?

Action Research and the AMEP

My main concern in this chapter is with the role that teacher research can play in informing the interface between curriculum development and classroom practice in large-scale organisations. Much of the professional development and research work in which I have been involved over a number of years in the AMEP has adopted a collaborative action research approach. This has involved close collaboration between groups of teachers, teacher educators and university-based researchers such as myself. This approach is seen as a way of researching areas of practice identified at a national l~vel as priorities for AMEP curriculum and teacher development (Bnndley, 1990) and "as a means of both improving and understanding curricula" (Cumming, 1997, p.l).


Over the last ten years specific areas of action research have included:

• developing curriculum frameworks for learner-centred course design (Nunan & Burton, 1989);

• investigating the teaching of literacy in adult ESL programs (Hammond, Burns, Joyce, Gerot & Brosnan, 1992);

• exploring changing course design practices in a national move towards competency-based curriculum (Burns & Hood, 1995);

• using spoken discourse in the classroom, involving the collection and analysis of natural language samples and trialing their use in classroom tasks (Burns, Joyce & GoBin, 1996);

• investigating the teaching of disparate learner groups (Burns & Hood, 1997);

•

•

•

exploring the use of critical approaches to teaching literacy (Burns & Hood, 1998);

documenting learning centred teaching practices within a competency-based curriculum framework (Bums & Joyce 1999); ,

investigating reading practices of adult ESL learners inside and outside the classroom (Burns and Joyce, 2001).

This year I will be involved with groups of teachers across Australia inves~igating the teaching of vocabulary in communicative language teachmg.

These research projects have formed part of a series of annual 'special projects' conducted nationally and coordinated through the National Centre for English Language Teaching and Research (NCEL TR). They are funded by the Australian Commonwealth Department of Immigration and Multicultural Affairs. They involve approximately 25-30 teachers per project and a major aim is to link curriculum theory, research and practice within the AMEP. A collaborative action research approach is seen within this organisation as a means of enabling classroom t~achers to participate directly in researching, documenting and developmg current AMEP practice.

I' il \

I

:'······· j

i

I !


The Practice of Action Research within the AMEP

Context

The projects I have highlighted have been identified and carried out in order to bring together local needs and national priorities. The process set up for these collaborative projects follows a number of stages:

1. Research areas are nominated to NCEL TR by all AMEP providers nationally. These arise from local interests as well as government policy agendas and they emerge from local consultation between

teachers and program administrators.

2. Areas for curriculum development which are nominated by several of the local providers are selected for national collaborative action research investigation. Once these selections have been made, calls for teacher participation are made through the local state networks. Typically, six to eight teachers working with a group coordinator volunteer to form a collaborative research group within that state. Through the NCEL TR researchers coordinating the project, each state group is linked to groups in other states. The group coordinators, usually professional development personnel in each state, are also known to each other through their regular participation in national

NCEL TR forums.

3. A project time frame is developed which includes workshopping, data collection, discussion, data analysis, documentation and report writing. While there is some uniformity in the structure of the time frame, it is also negotiated locally with the research groups to account for programming arrangements and other demands on teachers' time.

4. In the next stage the teachers attend an initial local workshop conducted by the NCEL TR research coordinators. This provides input on action research methods and allows teachers to identify initial areas for their research. Teachers then begin investigating their classroom contexts through observation, discussion with their learners and other

forms of data collection.

5. This is followed by a fifth stage, where each teacher further focuses and refines the research area through reporting and discussing their


observations at follow-~p workshops. This is a cyclical stage where the process of d~ta colle.chon and discuss.~on is repeated as teachers go more deeply mto the Issues they are researching.

? T~e .sixt~ stage involves analysing and interpreting the research and ~de~t~fymg Its outc~m~s. These are outcomes which are identified ~ndlvldual~y an4 withm groups, which further feed into national Illt~rpretatIOns and findings. Thus, the sixth stage begins to reorient the project back to the national level, towards the broader implications of the research for the AMEP.

7: Th~ se:enth s~age continues the process of broader analysis and dls~emmatIon. It mvolves teachers in writing reports and presenting theIr research to local and national audiences. The teachers' written repo~s ~re .made available to the wider AMEP audience through pu~hcatIOn m the NCELTR Teachers' voices series. Presentations on theIr research. are made to local colleagues, and, by smne teachers, at state and natIOnal conferences and NCEL TR national professional development forums.

Collaborative Action Research: An Example

~n order to put. some flesh on the bones of the process, I would like to Illustrate the ~mds of practice-based explorations that emerge from the research. I WIll select from the report written by Pam McPherson, the ~eacher whose cOI~lInents I quoted at the beginning. Pam was involved III the 1995-6 project 'Investigating the teaching of disparate learner groups'.

M~ group was diverse in all the ways that make Adult MIgrant English Service classes so interesting to teach. Ages ranged from 22-58 with equal numbers of males and females. They came from 15 different countries and spoke 17 different lang~a?es. Most had come to Australia because their country of ongm was now unsafe for them ....


My concern was with the wide variation. in the levels of spoken and written English ... I was uncertal~ ~ow to ~a~age the class and felt that my planning was very hit and miss ... I decided to read the literature on managing disparate learner groups and to talk to teachers in AMES and in co~munity organisations and school education about strategIes they

used ....

As a result, I decided to focus on developing materials and activities at different levels and to observe the responses of the learners to these materials. I documented these observations [using a journal and drawing up diagrams of . classroom interaction] and began to realise how much I tended to 'control' their learning by dispersing materials at 'appropriate' levels. When I allowed the students .to take control, they worked with them in different ways whlch they found personally effective.

However, at this point I became concerned about another aspect of the class. I observed that the students would not cooperate to undertake joint activities .. T?e~ were also starting to express exasperation, boredom, lmtatIOn and once, near hostility, as I brought to the classroom lessons ~nd activities I thought were interesting and relevant, but whIch they were not prepared to participate in ....

I decided on a strategy of individual consultation. I spoke to each student about what they were learning, how they were learning and how they could develop their skills. I documented their comments and followed with activities designed to enhance their requested learning areas. I also documented comments on their reactions to my classroom activities ....

I began to see emerging patterns and to uncover the rea~ons for the rejected activities. Student comments and reactIOns indicated that discussions that revolved around c~ltural or social difference were not acceptable .... On a class excursion, I learned that the students were aware of deep ethnic,


religious and political differences because of their experiences of the part of the worl~ they had just left... . I suddenly realised how difficult it had been for them to maintain the veneer of courtesy and civility when I was introducing activities which demanded that they expose and discuss the differences they were attempting to ignore! (McPherson, 1997a, p.26-29)

According to Pam, her research led her "to bring into question all the teaching values I held and to justify to myself and others the theoretical principles underlying my teaching practice" (p.30). She made changes to her teaching approach in terms of tasks, materials and classroom interactions that she would normally have discarded, but which within the sociocultural context of her classroom and the needs of her learners proved very effective. Her research also highlighted a broader organisational need, which was increasingly being expressed by other AMEP teachers, to develop more effective curricula, learning programs, activities and support for the increasing numbers of learners entering the program who were the victims of war, torture or trauma. The skills Pam had gained in conducting research in this project were taken into a further project investigating the special needs of such learners (McPherson, 1997b).

Here is another example from the project investigating the teaching of critical literacy.

In this project, the teachers had already identified a specific area when the group came together. This was: How can we integrate the concept of critical literacy into our teaching? Critical literacy referred in this project to developing a way of teaching that specifically drew attention to the way language is used to construct and promote particular ideologies, viewpoints or positions within written and spoken texts.

The groups' research question had surfaced spontaneously before the action research process formally began: first, through the attendance of one of the members at a professional development workshop and her subsequent reporting back to her colleagues; then, through infonnal discussions amongst interested colleagues at her teaching centre; and finally, through a study circle set up by the group where they

------------------------------------------------------------------------------"""'1


exchanged, read and discussed articles focusing on this topic. Hav~ng decided to formalise the action research process as a collaborative investigation, the group then worked in part~e~sh~p with. myself and another AMEP researcher experienced in facIlItating actIOn researc~ (see Bums & Hood, 1998). They dev~lo~ed. a timeline. ~or theIr investigations and this took into account InstltutIOnal necessIties, such as the fact that the teachers worked with the same group of students for short courses of only 10-15 weeks. During t~e first ~orkshop the members of the group exchanged the following mformation:

• The teachers each described the level of class they were teaching and gave a profile of their learner group.

• The research facilitators outlined the action research process a~d suggested methods for collecting data and discussed these WIth

the teachers.

• The group exchanged views on their und~rstandings of the concept of critical literacy and critiqued these Ideas.

• The group discussed approaches to teaching .critical lit~racy outlined in the articles they had read and bramstonned Ideas about how these could be implemented or adapted.

• The group exchanged ideas on the kinds of texts that could be selected as classroom materials.

By the end of the first session the teachers were a~le to ?utline some preliminary research questions, drawing on the dIscuSSIOns and the preparations they had made before the project began. Although thes.e questions changed somewhat over the course of the research, at thIS early phase the teachers felt sufficiently focused to be able to formulate

their various questions:

•

•

•

What resources and activities can be used to develop a critical literacy perspective in a low level class?

Can I develop a set of discussion questions which would ~elp students to raise their critical awareness of a range of wntten

texts?

What decisions do I make in selecting different types of texts for

students?

•

•

•


How do I incorporate a critical literacy perspective into my current approach to teaching reading?,

Can I apply a similar critical literacy approach to teaching both reading and writing?

How can you prepare learners for becoming critically literate through oral activities at low levels?

Judy Perkins, the teacher who formulated the first question, worked with a group of 12 post-beginner level students who had all arrived in Australia within the previous 18 months. The students were from Vietnamese, Bosnian, Chinese, Hungarian and Polish backgrounds and their ages varied from the early 20s to late 40s. They had all had between 8 and 12 years of education and their goals were to find jobs as soon as possible. Judy had been intrigued by the concept of critical literacy for some time and had already done some reading and thinking about this issue while working with students of a more intermediate level. She was curious to find out whether a critical perspective could be adopted in the development of literacy skills with students at a more beginning level. Judy describes her thinking on this issue in the following way:

It seemed to me that if a critical literacy perspective was an important aspect of literacy development then it must be inc01porated into teaching at all levels. And although I use authentic, real-life texts with learners at all levels, I felt that discussion about texts and closer analysis of texts would be more difficult with post-beginner learners. I wondered what kinds of texts would be both interesting and accessible to the learners and also provide a rich resource for discussion. What kinds of classroom activities would encourage critical analysis? Is there a clear progressiOll of skills? To attempt to answer these questions, Iformulated my research question as: What resources and activities can be used to develop a critical literacy perspective in a low level class?

Having settled on her question, Judy set about devising classroom actions and monitoring their impact. She collected texts which were on the same topic, but written from different sources and viewpoints . While assisting her readers to develop the reading skills she would


h dded "an extra dimension to the kind of normally focus on, sea . . ro am I would normally plan" by encouragmg her lea~ers

~~~~~:t~t!y texts with a critical eye." In order to d~ this she devIsed a set of "before reading" and "after reading" questions such as the

following:

Before reading

• Where might you find these texts?

• Who wrote them?

• Why were they written?

• Why are there pictures in the text? Is this helpful?

• Do you have similar texts in your country?

After reading

• • • •

. .? Do these texts give you enough mformatIOn.

Is there anything else you would like to know?

Are the texts difficult to read? Why?

Can you get good reliable information from these texts?

• Which texts are more reliable?

Throughout her research Judy collected dat~ through. the ~se of a ·oumal and by setting aside short periods of time to wnte bnef notes Jduring and immediately after each lesson. This practi~e ena~led he~ to monitor the effectiveness of the activities she had deSIgned m r~l~t~on to her class goals and the reactions of her students to these actiVIties. Her observations include the following:

It was clear that in experimenting with activities that might not be successful, it would be impo~tant to. embe~ these activities into others which would be znterestzng, enjoyable and immediately relevant.

[In this activity}, I considered aspects of classroom dyn~mic, such as the physical setting, group structures, where I stood

t I deliberatel)l downplayed my role as a teacher .... or sa ....


This was a useful activity in terms of establishing both teacher and learner as sources of know.{edge and expertise.

The main part of this lesson consisted of typical reading development activities. It was primarily in the "before reading" and "after reading" section that I added new questions ... . The learners were not used to discussing texts in this way and were at first unsure what they were supposed to be doing. However, after some discussion they had little difficulty in answering most of the questions. The one question which caused problems was the language analysis of the Medicare brochure "Thinking about the writing". Even after talking through it, some of them were still unsure what I was talking about and we abandoned the question, I think that if I had raised the question in general class discussion rather than write it on the worksheet for the learners to answer in groups, it would have been more successful.

AMEP Responses to Action Research

Comments from teachers and state coordinators suggest that AMEP action research processes are generally viewed very positively. For teacher educators working at an organisational level, they are seen as valuable because simultaneously they depend on and contribute to changes in policy and practice that have to be implemented and managed in the classroom:

Through involvement in the projects the notion of action research along with understandings of its underpinnings and value in assisting change processes were further developed. System and individual outcomes from these projects were extremely positive (Eady, 1997, p.l).

Teachers have also suggested that their own research helps them to understand the reasons and need for institutional change more explicitly.


It clarified important issues from outside the classroom.

More sensitive now to the demands made by industry on students and teachers. Able to accommodate those that are useful - discriminate those that aren't.

Teachers point to action research as a way of promoting. ~lose engagement with practice, which allows the~ to e~plore the realItIes of curriculum change. They see this as one of Its major strengths.

It made me evaluate what I was doing in my classes. I think I have become more methodical in the way I approach assessment and in my explanation to the class, not in what I do (which is much the same) but how.

It gives teachers an opportunity to reflect on the decisions behind what they do. As well it helps provide a foundation for further developing the curriculum.

Collaboration with other teachers is also seen as a significant benefit personally and an important way to generate solutions to changing demands in the organisation.

It gave me an opportunity to meet with others outside ~he centre, to listen to their ideas and their methods of solvmg problems which seem to be common to all.

Collaboration: Discussion was most worthwhile- broadening perspectives, feedback, reinforcement and support.

Other comments relate to the sense of personal growth teachers

experience.

I felt good to be part of a project again. I liked having the time and direction to reflect on what I was doing and why.

It was fun! When you're feeling pretty jaded by college and state bureaucracy, it s nice to stretch the brain a bit. .

Increased self-awareness and personal insight are also valued.


Self-analysis - examining strengths and weaknessesreaffirming commitment to principles . .of teaching.

I was surprised by the responses from a questionnaire I gave the students and it was interesting for me to write this up.

In case what I have argued sounds too much like an uncritical e~do~sement of action research, let me point out that teachers have also hIghhghted the difficulties of doing action research. These include:

• having the time to carry out research in addition to their usual teaching;

• being disciplined and systematic about writing up or documenting data;

• the logistics of collecting data at the same time as teaching;

• uncertainty about whether what they were doing was 'right' and whether they were going about the data collection effectively;

• exposing their teaching to other teachers and to researchers· , • the. pressure of addition~l practical arrangements, like finding

eqUIpment and remembenng to tape their classroom interaction· , • the tedium of recording data regularly and of writing issues rather

than just thinking about them;

• no~ wanting to exhaust their learners' goodwill if they were the major focus of the data collection;

• writing up the research outcomes for public consumption.

These difficulties are expressed in the comments of a teacher from Queensland, Meg Quinn (1997):

The greatest disadvantage was in terms of increased workload and increased stress. I sometimes found that it was difficult to maintain both roles - teacher and researcher - and that because of time pressures data collection methods became less thorough than they should have been. I often felt that I was not able to do as much as was needed. I also experienced dissatisfaction with my own teaching, often


having far greater expectations of what I wanted to achieve than what was really possible. Turning the spotlight on one's teaching practice tends to reveal all, good and bad, which can be an uncomfortable process (p. 4).

However, overall having opportunities in place to conduct practitioner research and an institutional climate that promotes research seems to be valued by most teachers. This, I believe, can be attributed to a

number of factors:

• the research focuses on current AMEP curriculum issues which are common to many AMEP teachers;

• it is organisationally supported by the various institutions in which teachers work, both in terms of release time and assistance

coordinators;

• the research is collaborative as it has involved teams of researchers, teachers and professional developers working together in local and national networks;

• the research is practical in the sense that it both focuses on practical classroom strategies and gives rise to changes in

practice;

• it is seen as systematic as it involves processes of data collection and analysis and outcomes which are fed back into the

organization;

• the research is seen as accessible as it is conducted by teachers for dissemination to other teachers.

Although the number of individual teachers opting to participate in each successive local group is small, there is evidence that the outcomes for the organisation are exponential and longer term. Collaborative action research appears to have a strong impact on the individual and, ultimately, on the organisation and its effects seem to be more professionally significant than many other fonns of

professional development.

Having a pool of teachers with research experience also forms a valuable resource for the organisation. Several individuals who have

Collaborative Action Research' An Austral'lan E ' , xpenence 21

partici~ated in collaborative projects have gone on to take leadin profeSSIOnal development roles within their local t h' g 11 h' "eac mg centres as we as researc rol~s III other national projects. In terms of the national AM~P agenda, actIOn research provides a tool for developments in practIce and theory as well as an avenue for identifying furth researchable areas of practice. er

References

Brindley, G. (1990). Towards a research agenda for TESOL P 6,1,7-26. . rospect,

Bums, A., & .Ho?d, S. (Eds.). (1995). Teachers' voices: Explorin course deszgn zn a changing curriculum. Sydney: NCEL TR. g

Burn~, A., & Hood, S. (Eds.). (1997). Teachers' voices 2: dzsparate learner groups. Sydney: NCEL TR. Teaching

Burns: ~., ~ Hood, S. (Eds.). (1998). Teachers' voices 3· Teaching crztzcallzteracy. Sydney: NCELTR. .

Bums, A., Hood, S. Lukin A. & McPherson P. (1996) E - d' h J, . I' ' . . xpan zna t e

prOjeSSlOna zsm of TESOL practitioners through action rese~rch TESOL Research Symposium, Chicago, 1996. .

Bunls, A., Jo~ce, H., & .GoBin, S. (1996). 'I see what you mean ': Usina spoken dzscourse zn the classroom: A handb k fi ~ h b

Sydney: NCEL TR. 00 OJ teac ers.

Bum~, A. & Hood, S. (Eds.). (1997). Teachers' voices 2' Teaching dzsparate learner groups. Sydney: NCEL TR. .

Bums, A., & Hood, S. (Eds.). (1998). Teachers' voices 3: Teaching critical literacy. Sydney: NCELTR.

BU7s, A., & Joyce,. H. (Eds.). (1999). Teachers' voices 4: Staying ~~~~;~~ntred zn a competency-based curriculum. Sydney:


& J H (Eds) (2001). Teachers' voices 7: Teaching Bums, A., oyce,. ". vocabulary. Sydney: NCEL TR.

. A (1997). Perspectives on research. Outreach, 6, 3: 1. Cummmg, .

E d J (1997). Supporting the action research process. In A. Bums a ~~d' S. Hood (Eds.), Teachers' Voices 2: Teaching disparate learner

groups (pp.151-157). Sydney: NCELTR

Hammond, J., Bums, A., Joyce, H., Gerot, L. & Brosnan, D. (1992). English for social purposes. Sydney: NCEL TR.

M Ph P (1997a). Social and cultural difference in the classro~m. c erson, . , . 2 1J. chmg

B A & Hood S. (Eds.). Teachers VOIces : ea In urns,." d . NCEL TR disparate learner groups (pp. 26-30). Sy ney. .

M Ph P (1997b). Investigating learner outcomes for clients with c erson, . . h P R ch

special needs in the Adult Migrant Enghs rogram. esear Series, No.9. Sydney: NCEL TR.

N D & Burton J. (Eds.). (1989). National Curriculum Project unan, ., , Frameworks 1-8. Sydney: NCFL TR.

f · ch' A teacher's Quinn, M. (1997). The experience 0 actIOn resear . perspective. Outreach, 6, 3:4.

Endnote

1 This Chapter is based on the paper presented at the Symposium f~r I:I0~g K E r h Language Teachers, Teacher Educators and School Pnnclpa s,

ong ng IS . ' d' th G between Schools and "English Language Teachmg: Bn gmg e ap 6 2000 Universities." City University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong, May, .

Fostering and Furthering Effective and Investigative Practices Gertrude Tinker Sachs

Where there is no vision, the people perish. Proverbs, 29: 18

Introduction

Current discourse on educational reform in Hong Kong has been constructed from a deficit model of teachers and teaching. For teachers of English, in particular, the public debate has been particularly divisive, scathing and accusatory. The debate has centred quite narrowly around the goverrunent's political agenda to improve the perceived declining English language proficiency of its residents and thereby enhance Hong Kong's competitive edge in the region and in the global marketplace. The perceived decline in students' language proficiency has been constructed from a narrow conception of teachers' supposed language and teaching deficiencies. Teachers have been branded failures implicitly and explicitly because they are said to lack adequate English language proficiency skills themselves, are weak in their teaching and lack adequate training and professional credentials. One of the first political moves to appease business interests groups was to undermine the autonomy and authority of tertiary institutions to professionalise teachers. Rather than the tertiary institutions from which they are graduating, the final word is left to the government officers to decide who is qualified or not to teach a given subject. Teachers of English, as well as teachers from a


selection of other subjects, if deemed 'unqualified', by the vetting .committee's review of their credentials, now need to sit the language assessment measures which were developed and are administered by the government. The controversial language tests for teachers would then determine their (in)eligibility to teach English. Another cog in diminishing the self-confidence of teachers was a move by the government to expand the Native English Teachers (NET) Scheme and recruit more teachers to boost English language teaching. To make matters worse, these expatriate teachers were often given more benefits than local teachers and in some cases, were given lighter teaching responsibilities than their local counterparts. These new demands and additions to teachers' professionalism and work life, are exacerbated and complicated further by the pressures and tensions attributed to curriculum and school reform. The new pressures and demands for example, relate to the management and governance of schools, the methodology and content of teaching and the physical environment (Cheng, 2000; Mok and Lee, 2000; Pang, 2000; Tse,

2000).

Due to the changing needs in the market place, reforms also relate to the need for teachers to get additional credentials in computer literacy and information technology (IT). Tse (2000) notes that the reforms in recent years have been "large in scale and carry tremendous impact" (p.l). In his article, Tse also critiques the language of one of the far-reaching government reports, the Education Commission Report No. 7 (hereafter ECR 7) (Education Commission, 1997a) which he feels is loaded on management terms but downplays the humanistic elements of teaching and learning. Tse describes the vocabulary of the report as very loaded on accountability terms such as, "quality assurance, management, incentives, competltIOn, performance, efficiency, cost-effectiveness, standards, choices, appraisal, value-added, and excellence." He believes that the report gives less attention to humanistic issues such as, "equality, rights, justice, democracy, humanity and education for all" (p. 3). In that very same document, ECR7, Chapter 6, on raising professional standards of principals and teachers, the vocabulary of teaching and teachers is also very high on elements of "training" and lovy on elements of "teaching and learning environment", important features for the

well-being of teachers.

Fostering & Furth' Eft . enng ecttve & Investigative Practices 25

In discussing the discourse of r f4 ' ~nited States, Cochran-Smith an~ ~~ m teache.r education in the Important to "unpack" th I : es (~OO 1) Illustrate why it is

. e va ues IdeologIes and l"f . v~ewpo~nts are enshrined or emb~dded i . po I ICS m which viewpomts have far reach" n publIc documents. These and other public inst~tutio~~~~~n~~~~e on ;~achers, teacher education unless these underlying ideals valu s. e ~esearc~ers suggest that along with the "evidence" b 't h

es and IdeologIes are debated

a ou teac er qu r t . progress in effecting progress and devel . a I y, we wIll. make little through forms of renewal. opmg our educatIOn systems

Teacher Action Research: A Journey to Understandin th Curriculum Reform and Teac~ De Demands of Hong Kong er evelopment in

Cochran-Smith and Fries (2001) h "evidence" when d" ave suggested that we look at the

lscussmg teacher qual't d Evidence may take man .c . 1 Y an teacher conditions.

y Jonns such as in th d' thereof of teachers and tIle " e cre entIals or lack

exanlmatIOn results d .c graduates in the job market ' an perlonnance of However ob' t' (e.g., EducatIOn Department 1997)

, ~ec Ive measures are not so 'I ' ' . to examine the factors and "easl y applIed when we want teaching and good teachers" ancdonthditIOl~ds that contribute to "good

d' e eVI ence may t b Iscern for critical reviewers Th" no e so easy to " . IS actIOn research ' 1

Journey mto contemplating the "evid" p~oJect las been a what is there can be enhanced to ef:e

nce o~ what IS there and how Kong. Through this chapter, we will e~~ cumculum r~fonn i~ Hong of conducting action research in the sch etvou,r to. relIve the Journey connect this "evidence" whe 'b~o settmg m ~ong Kong and curriculum refonn and tead re POS~I ~ to the offiCial rhetoric of Kong. By examining the d;er pro ;ssIOnal development in Hong between the two paths we shgrll

ee °d convergence and divergence,

. ,a en eavour to un mIsmatches in the public d b t cover, some of the perceptions and mispercePtion~ :/t:a a~d d~cume~ts regarding the English and the ways in h' h c ers, m partIcular, teachers of development and CUrriculu: IC h we go about fostering curriculum

c ange. Where paths converge, it is


hypothesised that change would be easier to enact, but where the two paths diverge, the greater the dissonance and the challenges, tensions and distance for increasing change.

The Contextual Background

Rainey (2000), in her report on taking stock of EFL practitioners' awareness of action research, found that of the 229 EFL teachers surveyed in 10 different countries, (China, Columbia, Greece, Japan, Morocco, Poland, Qatar, Saudia Arabia, Thailand and Tunisia), 171 or 75.50/0 of the teachers had never heard of action research. In many cases where one hears about action research, only the negative and difficult aspects of it are reported (e.g., Nunan, 1994). In second language education there is more bad news. Bums (1999) has lamented the fact that while second language teacher action research has been given attention in recent times, the focus is from the perspective of academic researchers rather than classroom teachers. This appears to be true for Hong Kong as the culture of action research is undeveloped and does not seem to have had a long history. In fact, Chan in 1996 commented that "action research in EL T in Hong Kong is still in the initial stage" (p. 27) as is also the case for the People's Republic of China (PRC) as a whole but even more so than the Special Administrative Region of Hong Kong (Thome and Wang 1996; Rainey, 2000). In the few reported cases where action research has been done in the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region (HKSAR), it has been carried out under the auspices of various university certificate courses and degree programmes. Examples are: the Post-graduate Diploma of Education (e.g., Tsui 1996; Curtis, 1999), and AR done with undergraduates and graduate students (e.g., Brock, Yu and Wong, 1992; Chan 1996; Crawford, 1999; Ho and Richards, 1993; Pennington, 1996; Richards and Lochkart 1992). There are also a few reported cases of AR being conducted in Hong Kong's tertiary sector by academics (e.g., Gow, Kember and McKay, 1996; Mahoney, Detaramani and Yu, 1991). However, in a provocative paper, Li, Lam, Yu and Fok (1998) question whether Hong Kong has a future in action research given the "lack of action research and school-based reforms in Hong Kong" (p.2). The writers go on to explain that the legacy of colonialism and

i,

I '~

Fostering & Furthering Effective & Investigative Practices 27

a culture of conformity h' h teaching are some of the ~ro::~:cntYf. weak le.adership and isolated an absence of an action research_base~~tors whlc~ ~elp to account for views are echoed in their 1999 k ~~.lture wIthm schools. Similar

where the researchers note that a:~:rly:~ ;;82L~m, and Fok, 19:9) had been made to the govemm t ~ ~ recommendatIOn facilitate teacher professional d e~ or the adoptIon of research to believe that in general AR still e~e op~ent. Thome and Wang (1996) is just getting started 'L' L Yi

as a ong way to go in the PRe and

db' I, am, u and Fok (1998 1999) ld ou t, echo similar concerns about HKSAR, ' wou ,no

EC.R 7 (6',7) does recommend that "teachers should en actIvely m. conducting school-related research" and !~e ,~or~ research wIll have practical a I' t' suc education directly" Th d pp lca Ion and will benefit school ad ' ,e ocument also states that "in this connectio

eq~ate support servIces, training and research time-off n, prOVIded to the teaching staff" Th Ed' should be encouraged teachers to cond' t ~, ucatIOn Department has also applauded b Li . , ~c ac IOn research and this has been

, y W~l-shmg m the local press (Li 2001) I th government s ~ducatIOn reform documents (Educati~n Co~i n, e 2000), an actIOn research cult ' sSlOn, ure IS supported' 1" I ' changing role of school heads and t h ,Imp IClt y In the 8.3 as follows: eac ers whIch are enumerated in

(i) From someone who transmits kn I d students to construct knowledge; ow e ge to one who inspires

(ii) Fro~, some?ne who implements the curriculum to one who partICIpates In the development of school-based policies,'

(iii) From, someone who executes pOll'cl'es b

to one who leads and contn utes to the reform. (p.123)

In order to meet the changes in th 1 should be "self-initiated pr f e r~ es, scho~1 heads and teachers shoul~ enhance their' pr~;~s~:~n:7 pursue hfelong learning, and commItment" (8 3 p 123) H con:petence and sense of

',. . owever whIle these d explicitly and implicit! su 0 ' ' , . ocuments are can thrive th f: 'I Y pp rtmg a culture In WhICh action research

, ,ey al to connect to some of th b . , pnnciples of teacher development Fulla d ~ aSlC underlYIng describe these principles as conne~ting w~tha~he t:arcgrhea;res (1992) er s purpose,

1-------------------------------


seeing the teacher as a person, understanding the real context within which teachers work and appreciating the culture of teaching (p.5).

In an earlier paper, Richards, Tung and Ng (1992) summarised the setting within which most teachers of English in Hong Kong work. The researchers had administered a questionnaire survey to 249 teachers of English to investigate the culture of teachers of English in Hong Kong. The majority of teachers felt that they should be responsible for determining the aims of the curriculum not the Education Department and the Examinations Authority. Most of the teachers also reported that they used the textbook as their primary teaching tool with their most frequent instructional activity being "doing reading and writing activities from the textbook" (p.90). Teachers see themselves as professionals despite the difficulties of teaching which include their heavy workload of marking books, teaching large classes, attending school meetings, and working in unfavourable environments coupled with external constraints such as lack of resources and restrictions imposed by a rigid curriculum (p.97). Hirvela and Law also noted in their 1991 report that teachers were "teaching more than 30 periods per week or cycle, teaching around 40 or more pupils per class and coping with increasingly and dangerous disciplinary problems" (p.27).

FrOln the -report by Richards, Tung and Ng (1992), teachers appeared to be dissatisfied with their lack of autonomy. In addition, Hirvela and Law (1991) noted that if teachers had been consulted about mixed-code teaching, that is using both English and Chinese when teaching English, the government might not have made such outright sweeping and uniformed changes for this practice in their education reform document, Education Commission Report 4 (Education Commission, 1990). In fact, as Richards et al. (1992) show, teachers' approval of the use of mixed-code varied according to the grade level and subject being taught, a markedly different perspective from how it was viewed by the Education Commission. Teachers and the government also differed on the pendulum swings and roller coaster changes in the implementation of the new curriculum TOC (Target-Oriented Curriculum) (Carless, 1997; 1999). Similar sentiments could be made regarding the imposition of the assessment measures for.}anguage teachers by the government in October 2000.


This. action was dee~ed necessary to "improve the standard of EnglIsh language teachIng and learning in.,Hong Kong" (Hong Kong Govemme~t, 2000). Teachers, in tum, were derided by articles in the local EnglIsh press: "Teachers flunk English test" (SCMP 9 J 2001); "Celebrating an English failure", (SCMP 18 June 20'01)' un de "Wh t h .c: '1 " , an en eac ers lal , what chance have our students got" (SCMP 19 June,2001). '

Fr?m the earlier studies, it appears that teachers of English are not bemg ~ffirme? for what they are able to do and accomplish as profeSSIOnals m the language classroom and in the school at large ECR7 (6.10) notes"the ~eed to "enhance the professional status and morale of teachers.. TheIr response is to "put in place a fair and open performance appraIsal system for principals and teachers" (p 39) Teachers of today~s world, are also beset by various demands' and contextual. constramts which make teaching especially challenging. But, even m the ~ontext of being challenged by the many changes that they are beset WIth, teachers are .willing, able and capable of meeting t~e challenges when ~hey are gIVen appropriate support (Mahon & TInker Sachs, 199~; Tmker Sachs, 2000; Tinker Sachs, Cheung, Pang, ~ Wong, 1998; TInker Sachs, Lat~, Ng, Sam, Tam & Leung, 2000; TInker. Sachs & Mahon, 1998). ThIS project however, arose out of a recognIsed n~ed by the Hong Kong University Grants COlnmittee (UGC) to bndg.e. the traditional divide between the university and schoo! commumties as well as the separation of traditional research paradI~ns and practice. The UGC's purpose was to "enhance the profeSSIOnal competence and status of teachers" (Education Reform 2?00a: 8:6) through forging links with schools and universities a dI~ect response to ECR7 (Education Commission, 1997b, p.123).' In thIS case, we saw t~e. need ~o work with teacher practitioners who volunt~ered t? partlc~pate m the project through fostering and furth~nng theIr reflectIve and effective practices in the teaching of EnglIsh. Such a long term approach to in-service teacher professional deve1?~me~t ha~ been cited by some Hong Kong-based researchers as a pOSItIve direCtI?n for developing teacher efficacy and improving the culture of ~eachmg and learning in Hong Kong (see Chapter 3 m Clark, Scanno and Brownell, 1994).

Our objectives when we started out were as follows:


fI t the development of critically reflective ~ to ~s e~ English language teaching in Hong Kong; practIce m

. l' f . culture and climate ~ to support teachers m cu tlva Ing a ., ffl t' within schools for promoting a~d sustammg e ec Ive practices in the teaching of Enghsh; and .

to work collaboratively with teachers to devel°b.vlde~ ~ cases which represent best practices in the teac mg 0

English as a second language.

Research Proposal (Spring, 1998)

. r belief that when teachers are act~vely From the .outset, It was?u and constructing their profes~I?nal engaged I~ dec~nstructmg rt from the field, the condltlons activities WIth theIr peers an~ expe~. are then furthered, fostered for reflective and more effectlve prac Ice and supported.

. . rch according to Zuber-Skerritt (1992) In fact, the aIms of actIOn resea, rfI rmance as well as to improve are to "lea~ and develop o;e S pe t:ose existing conditions and one's practIce and .to c la~ge. ede ractical improvements." organisational. constramts ~hIChd ~Pitself: cannot accomplish what However, a~tIOn research, m a~chan in existing conditions and Zuber-Skemtt refers to as 1 't ~ ~one within a collaborative

. . 1 onstraints" un ess 1 IS f orgamsatIOna c . Id greatly foster a culture 0

setting. A collabor~tive envlronml

dent w~u expertise within the school h · f profeSSIOnal know e ge an .

s anng 0 .' ctitioners/researchers. Carr and Kemmls, and between umverslty pr~ b f as central to the action research (1986) see the aspect of co a ora IOn process. They state:

Th full task of a critical educational science r~quires e. . the organization of therr own

participants to collabora~e. III . b which they will r htenment, the deCISIOn-making Y ., . .

en Ig h" tuations and continuing cntIcal analYSIS In trans~orm t elr ~se uenc;s of those transformations which the hghtt. o~h~o eng~gement of scientific discourse, processes can sus aln . (p 159) . of enlightenment and practical actIOn. .


Bums (1999, p. 12) also endorses a collaborative approach and has criticised those who in the second la,pguage literature have aligned action research with individual practice (e.g. Nunan, 1989; 1992; Richards and Freeman, 1992). In fact, the benefits of collaboration between teachers and teachers within schools and across schools as well as collaborative ventures between teachers and tertiary level staff have been highlighted in the literature for some time by researchers (Cole & Knowles, 1993; Hargreaves, 1999; Van Lier, 1989). Somekh (1993, p.37) states the benefits succinctly: "to have an impact on institutional development, individuals at different levels in the formal and infonnal power hierarchies need to carry out action research collaboratively." But, in looking at teacher learning in the context of education refonn and theories of human capital, Smylie (1996, p.IO) suggests that teachers' opportunities to learn should involve interaction and collaboration with other teachers and educational professionals as sources of new ideas and feedback. While collaboration is important and can take many fonns, it is also critical that all parties respect each other and work together with parity (Oja & Smulyan, 1989). Education documents also endorse collaboration, with tertiary institutions to achieve school-based quality reform (ECR7: 2, p. 20). However, if one is only concerned about making an impact at his/her classroom level, while collaboration of some form is beneficial, it is not an absolute must for teacher self-improvement to take place.

When we initiated this 2-year project we had hoped that we would do the following within a collaborative framework:

~ Find 5 participating schools with five teachers in each school who would work with five university lecturers;

~ Conduct bi-monthly video taping of each participating teacher's lessons;

~ Conduct monthly discussion group meetings on the lessons;

~ Participate in video taped interviews;

~ Develop video cases of effective practices.

The Proposal (Spring, 1998)

) I f


The extent to which these plans were realised will now be discussed.

The Beginnings - The First Year (September 1998 -June 1999)

After funding was approved for this project, work be~a~ in eame~t to solicit the support of teachers and their principals to Jom the proJect. The following is an excerpt from one of our letters to teachers:

Dear Principal, Panel Chair and Teachers of English,

This letter is to brief you about the above named project and to invite your application. The project i~ fun~ed. by. the University Grants Committee (UGC:) an~ zts obJectzv~ zs to foster and further effective pr~ctzces .m the teachmg of English by supporting reflectzve actwn research-based activities in our school setting.

Teachers who engage in action research are said to becom.e more effective in their practices. by refl~cting o.n thezr teaching and then by acting on thezr reflectwns t~ zn~prov.e their teaching. The act of improving one:S teachmg m thzs

's supmorted bll others, peers and university teachers, case, z r of • h . who can help to foster the climate of effectzve c ange m practice. The power of such an approach is th.at the tea~hers themselves determine the direction for thezr professwnal growth and direction and control the pace to do so.

Letter to Teachers (19 Oct. 1998)

But despite our contacts and our initial efforts, the response to our invitation was very weak. In the first round, we mailed ov~r 60 letters of invitation to secondary schools to introduce the proJect. In the second round, we mailed letters to more that 300 secondary schools. During this period, we also established personal c~ntac~s and appeals with other secondary schools through our umversIty networks. Despite the exhortations from government o~ficials about the need ~or collaboration with tertiary institutions to achIeve school-based qualIty

c ( 15 ECR7' 220' P 38 ECR7: 6.7) few schools relorm e.g. p., ..,.,


expressed interest. An excerpt from our first quarterly report describes the first three months:

Due to the difficulties encountered in identifYing schools to join the project, the first workshop for school teachers was delayed until 28th November. Tliefirst workshop was held in one of the project schools. Three teachers from the secondary schools and one tertiary level teacher attended the workshop. During the workshop, teachers' understanding of action research was developed through introducing to them concepts of action research. The roles of the teacher as well as the researcher were discussed. A tentative research agenda was also discussed with individual teachers. However, as some schools would have examinations in late November or early December, time for the first videotaping to assist with identifYing possible areas to conduct AR, was scheduled for the middle of December or early January, 1999.

Quarterly Report (Dec. 1998)

In essence, the first year of the project involved our concentrated efforts in getting to know the teachers from the five schools who eventually joined the project (see Appendix A for the background information on the project participants). This phase involved not only getting to know teachers personally but becoming fully cognizant and appreciative of the complexity of their individual work contexts. While we had desired groups of teachers in individual schools, we ended up with a large group of teachers in one school (this group dropped out after the first year), small groups of 3 teachers in two schools and 2 individual teachers in 2 separate schools. These eight teachers remained in the project until the end. The three teachers in two schools were not necessarily united as they were teaching different forms and consequently had different teaching agendas and later, separate research interests. The individualistic groupings of some teachers and the individual setting for two of them marked important departures from our original concept of collaboration within schools but we needed to proceed despite this. However, the importance of school climate within this context of "individualism" cannot be underestimated as school climate would no doubt affect

,-


teachers' willingness to be involved in action researc? and influ~~ce their willingness to cany out a successful r~search proJect. ~n addl~IOn t h I context is the tension of compettng for teachers atten. hon. o sc 00 .. .. . Th' Teachers do not give priority to their partlclp~tIOn m a proJ~ct. elr first priority is to their students and the teachm~ cO,~te~t. OJa (1989~ reminds us that teachers who are involved m mSlder research activities see themselves first and foremost as classroom tea~hers and that the problem of time for insider research tends ~o be vIewed as teaching vs. research dilemma :Whi.ch get.s resolved. ~n favour of the fonner. In Hong Kong, this pomt IS partIcularly cnhcal, as teache~s usually have to follow the same syllabus at each grade level as theIr pupils will sit unifonn tests at the end of e~c~l semester. In order to motivate all the action research teacher partIcIpants, we scheduled a symposium at the end of the first year at which teachers would report and receive feedback on their work.

3:30-3:35 5' Welcome 3:35-3:45 10' Introduction 3:45-4:45 60' Reporting & Discussion

Teacher report on ~ Their finalized action research plan ~ Pilot study, difficulties encountered ~ Pupils 'feedback

4:45-5:00 15' Feedback from Visiting Professor 5:00-5: 15 15' Project Housekeeping

~ Forthcoming agenda ~ Question & Answer

Teacher Symposlum Outlme (July 1999)

As action researchers, McLean (1995) reminds us that action re~earch is not a quick fix just as change cannot be enacted in a short p~nod of time or as a result of one workshop. Action research, ~lke any curriculum change endeavour, is a process that can make .a dIfference over time. Setting a flexible research agenda that ln~~rporat~s teachers' busy schedules and school commitments can faCIlItate thIS process.

The first year of the project then, involved winning the commitm~nt and establishing the trust and confidence of the teacher actIOn


researchers. For the university research team, it meant developing patience and respecting teachers' busy .work lives and schedules. Teaching is essentially personal, and unle~s outsiders take the time to develop trust, the chance of having. high impact is considerably lessened.

The Second Year (September 1999 - June 2000)

The second year can be characterised as intensive work with teachers and getting to know them more deeply at both personal and professional levels. For the university researchers, this year required a deeper and higher level of engagement, which meant that we needed to be deeply attuned and sensitive to our approaches and ways of interacting with teachers. The status of the university researchers, brings many issues of power and control to the action research process. The researcher has to be careful that s/he is not merely enforcing her/his Own views but listening and investing in the best possible approach to the problem or situation at hand. The teacher's own viewpoints and superior knowledge of the students and the context should be allowed to supersede the researcher's views given his/her outsider status. Carr and Kemis (1986) caution that by virtue of their greater knowledge of research, their status, and the research framework they may bring to the project, outside researchers may have too much influence on what issues the group addresses. Because of the status and resources that university researchers already have, special attention also needs to given to the language used with regards to register, tone and emphasis. One of the problems cited by Oja (1989) is that teachers and researchers may use different languages and focus on different problems, and may therefore have trouble communicating. Another role of the university researcher is asking questions which challenge existing frameworks or theories that could possibly shape and influence teachers' views and actions (OJ a, 1989). This questioning can be a source of conflict between the researcher and the teacher. The researcher needs to know how far to pursue a line of questioning and when to withdraw or let go, depending on the teacher's response. Questions regarding researcher and teacher autonomy in the action research process then come to the forefront of


the collaborative work (Tinker Sachs, 2000).

The following extract from a conversation wit~ one of the teach~rs demonstrates differing viewpoints as a potentIal source of tensIOn between the researcher and the teacher.

A Conversation with Ms. Tse1 (28 Feb. 2000)

The Researcher s Perspective:

Ms. Tse is frustrated by my comments. I also sense genuine conflict with her desire to invest in a particular approach and also meet the needs of her pupils based on her knowledge and experience. Ms. Tse is committed to helping them succeed but she has not seen progress in her pupils in tlying out this approach. She is very concerne~ ~~out thi~. I expressed reservations about controlling and izmItzng pupzls. She is concerned about pupils' errors. I am concerned about too much structure and she is concerned about lack of clarity and organisation without the structure. Ms. Tse wan~s to help her students as she sees it as her job to help them zn this way but I am concerned about too much help. I h.ave asked Ms. Tse to think about too much help and to conSIder how to support her students' language development in this area without so much "help." I have promised to send her something that could help to stimulate ideas without prescribing what is to be written as observed in the lesson.

The Teacher s Perspective:

I had a short chat with the researcher. She suggested that I had given too much help to my students during the lesson. I thought about the objectives of the lesson. I wanted to help students write creative ideas and improve their organisational ability. I think we should not ask a child to walk when the adults do not show them how to walk. Teachers should set a good example for students to follow. After having ample practice, students will g~a~p the techniques of organisation. I do not think I am gIvzng too

I Pseudonyms are used for teachers throughout this chapter.


much help but necessary help.

(This extract is taken from the teacher s comments in her journal)

~ addi~ion. to discussions like the one above, the second year of ImmerslOn. mto the heart of the action research process was also fraught WIth many other challenges and dilemmas. Some of the researchers' efforts during this time are captured in the following notes:

Notes from Our Second Year

Researcher s Journal November 1999:

The researcher read through the transcription of meeting dated 17 Septembel: Problems found with the English lessons were discussed. Ms. Liu responded that she really wants to improve her teaching strategies in teaching grammar lessons. She wants to create a lively learnina

. b

enVlronment for the students.

Ms. Lin and Ms. Ma joined in and talked about their ideas. ~hey se~med velY pleased by the various ideas that came up In the dIscussion.

* * * * * The conversation started by updating Ms. Lo and Ms Li about the last workshop which they were not able to attend. Workshop handouts, project calendar, conference information and a few articles for reference had been sent to Ms. La and Ms. Li. Both teachers said that they did not have time to read the articles that we had sent to them. But they really appreciated the work done and they knew that those articles would help. their action research project.

Meeting Notes 22 Jan. 2000:

Ms. Lee explained why she did not reply to me so often in the last few months because she needed to rush her own assignments and also, to teach 60 worksheets to her students

-----------------------------------~~~-- -~----


. . 3 ks Alfier this then, she would catch up on the wzthzn wee . , project work.

School Visit Meeting Notes 28 Jan. 2000:

. the meeting we brainstormed several grammar Du~z~~ fi I t;ers The contents of the newsletters are: actzvltzes or news e . . . h I news and events, language games, survey, zntervzews, sc 00

article, and songs.

, t"ty a survey on habits using much, many, a Ms. Kams ac zvz -. h lot of, etc. and an interview wzth the NET teac er.

v:' t"ty a descrintion of the teache.rljriend etc. Ms lau s ac zvz - r . P t Te~cher s / Grandma s Greatest Achievements uszng resen Perfect Tense.

In February! after the researchers' meeting, I contacted the . A fi was also sent to them teachers several tzmes. ax d'd t

regarding the progress of work this week but theyz no, reply.

Schedule of Meeting with Ms. Ho:

Date: 10 March 2000 (Friday) Time: After school Content: 1) Videotaped Lesson Review

-follow-up activities - a critique of the lesson

2) Action Research Plan - Research Focus 3) Journal Writing 4) Exemplar of Action Research Paper . 5) Context of the schooI; students, usual teachzng

practice


During the work of engaging in school-based action research with teachers in their school settings, the univ,ersity researcher is not there just to activate the process and convene meetings (OJ a, 1989). One important role is to provide the impetus and energy to sustain the project. We created momentum by organising a symposium at the end of every year. In our second year, we felt that teachers needed a goal similar to the first year but on a larger scale in order to motivate them and to extend them further given the competing activities from their regular school work

The following letter helped to set momentum for this:

Letter to Teachers (2 Feb. 2000) Dear Teachers,

Once again, greetings for a great Thar of the Dragon! This letter is to give you more details on what will be happening between now and July. First, J must tell you that our proposal has been accepted for presentation at the University of Science and Technology s June Conference. Ife also have our own project sponsored symposium May 6.

By now all ~r you are well on your way in documenting your pupils' progress from the activities that you have developed for your AR project. Howevel; you also need to reflect on your own development. The heart of AR is the teacher and what the teacher is doing and what the teacher is thinking.

While it was easy for most teachers to plan, reflect on and see their pupils' growth, teachers found it difficult to find time to reflect on their own development. Outside the university c1assroom where most teacher journal writing is initiated and given a grade, the time constraints and pressures are huge and writing post lesson reflections and maintaining a journal was a great responsibility and burden for most teachers. The results from our annual semi-structured interviews with teachers illustrate clearly the high premium on teachers' time and how participating in the project made additional demands (Refer to Appendix A for a summary of the interview findings). In response

)-, -,-


to the question on the problems and difficulties teachers encountered in carrying out their action research, the results indicate that five of the eight teachers saw time as a constraint. When asked about the most difficult aspect of carrying out AR, four said that time was the most difficult aspect of the project as they had heavy workloads and tight teaching schedules. When asked about th~ constr~ints th~t affect their job performance, half of the teachers agam mentIOned tIme and the syllabus while others mentioned students' attitude, standard and classroom management. One teacher also mentioned pressure from heavy workload, while another spoke about the pressure from vocal parents. Other problems related to class size, classroom settings, students' weak background knowledge, limited experience with group work, heavy workload and for one teacher, difficult.ies communicating with the project research staff. The followmg comments from our teacher interview data regarding problems in carrying out the action research reflect teachers' concern about "lack of time," which is embedded in all aspects of their AR work.

Not much except the time. I think both students and teacher lack time to participate in the project because students had to learn the things required by the syllabus and I should have more time for catching-up with the syllabus. I think I have time for observation and to think over what I have done but I don't have time to put the ideas on paper. (Ms. Li)

The most difficult part to me is how to find information for my topic and to think carefully for each step. It was because if one step was not doing velY well and it did not meet the need of the students, I had to do it again. I think the whole project did not have anything easy. It took much time to prepare for the lessons in order to do them well. (Ms. Lo)

Difficulties are unavoidable in teaching as well as in learning. To me, I had more difficulties in writing and publicizing my report because I didn't have much time to write it up. My workload in school is very heavy and I am velY involved in administrative duties. For the othe.r three areas (identifying problems, formulating plan/ steps/ procedures, gathering and analysing your data), I don't


think I have many problems but it s time consuming. /M. ~J s. Kam)

"

However, despite the lack of time, the results from the teachers' interviews indicated that all of them had joined the project because "they wanted to improve their teaching." Five of them indicated that the objective for doing the project was "to enhance students' learning" while the others wanted to find "new ways of teaching." Three teachers wanted their pupils to take the initiative more in leanling, two wanted pupils to learn from their peers, and another wanted to focus on pupils' social and cognitive development. Another teacher ~as interested in having her pupils become independent readers WIth less control from the teacher. Teachers cited the most challenging aspect of their teaching was how to help students learn, understa?d and ,re~e~ber: Other teachers said that the challenges were theIr own lImItatIOns m terms of their knowledge and pedagogy.

In c~mmenting upon the action research cycle and the process of c~rryIllg out AR, teachers, in general, felt that they did not have d~fficulty i?entifying research problems. Two teachers experienced dIlemnlas III formulating a research plan while another two had difficulties in gathering and analysing data. Half of the teachers also said that t?ey had found it difficult to write up and publicise their reports whIle three of them again mentioned time constraints in doing this.

During the third and final interview, seven of the teachers felt that AR could assist their professional development as it could help them know. more about teaching approaches and help them reflect on their tea~hIllg. Four said that they had changed in their teaching methods whIle the. other four had developed more tolerance in their thinking about theIr students. In terms of applicability, six teachers felt that AR was directly applicable to their teaching while two felt it was not applicable as it was time consuming. Six teachers felt more empowered by engaging in the project and six of them also felt that the project had. given them a better understanding of teaching methods and actIOn research. Teachers felt that pupils had learnt to :vork cooperatively and were willing to share ideas and grammar Items. Nearly all the teachers felt that the students liked the action

-I


research as they were happy doing extraordinary things during the lessons. One teacher commented that only half of her students had liked the AR project. Yet, six of the teachers felt that students had improved as a result of the AR project.

In general, teachers' conclusions about the AR project we~e quite positive. They felt that the extensive r~ading of relevant matenals was useful as it aided their professIOnal developme.nt. ~e.achers commented that the project gave them a chance to reVIew t elf own teaching and to do something that they needed and want~d to do. They considered the process to be laborious, yet effectIve. The teachers felt that the support given by the team .was ~ery ~ood including the useful literature, new ideas, and frUItful dIscussIOns about the teaching of English. Some felt that the process was well paced and reflective. In general, teachers felt that the research support had reduced much of the teachers' workload although one teacher said it was better to give more support. Five teachers felt that one of the strengths of the project was the help given by the research team. One teacher also mentioned the motivation provided by the team. In tenus of weaknesses, two teachers felt that the project was too long while another two felt it was not long enough. One teacher felt that there were too many written reports. Other we.a~esses re~ated to inadequate cotrununication and support in provIdmg matenals and lack of direction at the beginning by the research team. Some teachers also mentioned, lack of support frOln the school or the colleagues.

When questioned further about their colleagues.' views on their ~R work three teachers said that their colleagues dId not know about It. Othe; teachers felt that colleagues had a negative feeling toward them as some colleagues felt they were showing off, or stupid, or very brave for taking on a time-consuming burden. When as~~d a~out specific support from panel chairs and members of the admInIstratIOn, one teacher said that she had the support of other teachers who were on the AR team at her school. However, all the others said that they did not have the support of their colleagues. The support from principals was generally minimal and at the initial stage when teachers were invited to join the project, although for sqme te~chers encouragement was given at later stages. Only one teacher saId that the principal did not support her.


The Benefits of Action Research

McLean (1995) states that the primary b~nefit of action research is the personal satisfaction that is derived from providing more control over one's professional life and improving the educational environment for students. The participants in this action have ind~cated from the outset that their reasons for participating in the project were for personal growth and improvement of pupils' learning. For most of the teacher-researchers, these objectives were accomplished. For some of them, the ultimate satisfaction came when they presented their work. All the teachers were encouraged to give reports to their colleagues at panel and staff meetings about their work. However, from the final interviews very little sharing had taken place especially within the schools. Only one teacher had shared her work during the staff development day at her school, while two teachers had shared informally with other AR project teachers at their school. Another two teachers said they had had little sharing with colleagues as they felt that their colleagues were not interested. Three teachers had had no sharing at all. However, some teacher-researchers ha~ oP1?0rtunities to present their work at a colloquium at City UmversIty and at a conference at the University of Science and Technology. Teachers' reflection on presenting their work underscores the importance of sharing and connecting to others in the cOlrununity.

Connectedness to Others in the Profession

At least we are going to conferences, at least we are one of the teachers presenting and the book is coming, maybe the website is coming on too. And we also have connections with a tertiary institute. Usually, at secondary schools we have no connection with tertiary institutes. Secondary teachers feel isolated. Sometimes we do not feel support or that we can connect to some other forms in education. When we met some of the primary teachers last time at the conference, I can understand more about their problems. So I feel connected with other people in the education sector. (Ms.Yau)

I think that it really helps me to upgrade my level of


professionalism. As I work in a university setti~g it is really an environment that provides me some convenzence because I have the library, I have a computer, I can use the computer to access the Internet so it is very. convenient for me to do the research. And in this project, I can know other colleagues. It s very good that I can meet ~omebody who ~a~ the same point of view in doing rese~rch zn schoo!s. So zt zs very worthwhile because in my sett~ng I coul~n t find a~y partner because my setting is quite different. It zs a!orm sz.x,

A-level proaram and there is no connectwn wzt~ seven... b

other colleagues in this tertiary institute. (Ms. Lee)

It was the first time I stood in front of ~eople fr~m the teaching field and publicly shared my teachznf5. eXfer~ence. I think the feedback was quite good bec~use I dz~n t thznk that those in the audience were interested zn what I ve done .. An~ some of them gave me much supportive feedback. I thznk zt was a valuable experience for my personal exposure. An~ after the symposium, a school principal inv~ted ~e to hzs school to share what I've done in my project zn a staff development day for not only all English teachers but also all teachers in the school. (Ms. Lin)

In addition to connecting to others in the community through engagement in sharing their work, the teachers also found that ~he project helped to stimulate the deve~opment of the~r ~ethodologI~S and skills. The following comments III the next sectIOn Illustrate thIS

view.

Stimulating Development of Methodologies, Knowledge and Skills

Yes, I can know more about teaching methods, the re~ent trends and changes in teaching. Also, I have to read artzcles continuously to update myself. (Ms. Tse)

It keeps me going. I would not stay in the same profession for too long without stimulation from others. Teachzng and learnina should be a continuous process. (Ms. Yau)

b


Despite the problems of engaging in action research, the benefits far outweigh the difficulties and struggles. It is clear that teachers are genuine in their desire to develop themselve~ and can do so willingly with the support of school administrators, colleagues and the education community at large, but school conditions seriously hamper teachers who wish to take a creative and investigative stance in their work. The action research problems were largely fueled by an overly burdened, fixed syllabus with uniformed tests which promote "survival teaching" and constrains creative and investigative teaching. The over-crowded curriculum has been cited by Clark, Scarino and Brownell (I994, p. 10) as one of the major problems facing the Hong Kong education systenL In addition to the aforementioned, teachers' feeling that many colleagues and administrators were non-supportive was probably also exacerbated by the rigid syllabus because the other colleagues were" doing their work" while the action research teachers were "doing other things" by departing from the lock-step approach to teaching. This departure from the lock-step "survival" teaching created tensions for the AR teachers in completing their set syllabus despite the fact that for at least seven of the eight teachers, the AR work was on their assigned teaching topics. The tight syllabus no doubt also impacted the number of teachers who would have otherwise willingly participated in the project.

This "lack of space" for creative teaching is a serious problem for the Hong Kong education system in general. New curriculum initiatives are constantly added to the existing framework without adapting the old one so that teachers' work is twofold. If curriculum changes are to take place and teaching and learning enhanced, focusing only on training as seen in a number of education documents, will not be sufficient to support the changes. Systemic changes need to be made at the school level and room must be made to accommodate those changes in the existing. programmes. In order to have "hunggaan" or space, that is, breathing space, space to reflect, space to plan, space to discuss, space to be creative and investigative, space to incorporate changes, as well as physical space in which to work comfortably, teachers need a school environment that is open to accommodating the conditions for creativity to flourish. Our recommendations after two and a half years are therefore framed under the heading, ~Fa9

"hunggaan", or space.


Himggaan

Teachers who are engaging in teacher development activitie~ ne~d encouragement from school authorities in the form of ~eleas~ tIme m order to allow mental space to plan and carry out th~Ir projects and develop interesting and effective lessons. Release· tIme or teacher development time can be given to teachers after every five years. of teaching to allow for renewal before returning to full scale teachmg schedules. Flexible and creative use of staff to allow for short term or long term staff development can also ~e put in place so that one day/afternoon off per fortnight can be gIven to teachers to focus on

their development work.

The teaching syllabus needs breathing space so that teache~s can slo,,: down or speed up the curriculum as neces~ary ~nd also devl~te fro~ It as necessary. English panels need to ratiOnahze about w~lch tO~lCS are more or less important and find ways to accommo~ate mt~restmg learning tasks and activities that further language learnmg and Interest and engage their students. Quality teaching should not suffer ~or the sake of quantity. The English language syllabus needs to be tnmmed and teachers need to be empowered to teach in ways that are meaningful to their learners.

Collaborative work settings need to be developed within schools and between schools, and between schools and tertiary ~nstitutio.ns, for the development of teaching and learning. CollaboratiOn reqmres effort, and collaboration within schools is necessary for schools to be successful in developing effective teaching and learning programmes. However collaboration needs to take place in a setting where teachers are seen' as professionals who are capable of decision ~aking ~nd whose ideas are welcomed and incorporated by those 111 authonty. Sarason (1990) believes that when teachers are recognised by education reformers as equal partners the apparent intractable nature of education reform can change. In an interview with Anne Bums, Tinker Sachs (1999) questioned the noted Australian action researcher and author about the relationship between action research and other forms of professional development. Her comment was:


Compared with workshops, where information is simply being handed down to teachers to disseminate, this is a more fundamental way of working with'teachers in that they are taking real issues and real problems in their classrooms and they are bringing them to a collaborative group and what they discovered is that their problems and their issues are by no· means isolated. We have to move away from the isolationist view of both teaching and teacher education because it s the collaborative elements which seems to make huge chances for people and allow them to modify and renew their practice. The other aspect is what happens when teachers begin to talk about their own practice. It s immensely affirming so there is a veryl strong sense of feeling empowered, feeling your work is valued, feeling you've been .listened to, and feeling you have some recognition for your work as a teacher.

The tertiary teacher education researchers/ teacher developers need to engage more in the fundamental problems of developing English teaching and learning in the primary and secondary school settings. This action research proposal called for five teacher educator researchers but only one was involved. This type of work is necessary to furthering our understanding of the school contexts for which we are educating future teachers. Only through engagement can this understanding be enhanced and can infonned change be facilitated. Tertiary institutions should welcome this level of engagelnent and demonstrate its encouragement by affinning and rewarding this type of work. The University Grants Committee has taken the right step to encourage tertiary-school collaborations.

Conclusion

The role of the university researcher/teacher educator is not just to enact the AR cycle and convene meetings with the teachers. The role of the university researcher/teacher educator in action research is ultimately to improve teaching and learning through adopting a developmental perspective to teachers' professional growth. This perspective is distinguished from the short-term training model of

I '.1 :;11.: . I

i: II ",'1

i

r

) tj


teacher education and envisaged as a model that subscribes to continuous growth throughout a teacher's career (Lange, 1990). Engaging in the process of action research with teachers, assists the university researcher/developer in understanding the social context for language teaching and learning, and in investigating how language teachers teach and how their learners learn. These are fertile areas for further applied and basic research. Within the context of teacher development, engaging in action research with teachers helps the university researcher/teacher educator to understand the pathways to the adoption of particular ways of teaching and be able to recommend ways to overcome shortcomings as well as how to foster and further. more effective practices. Such insights can influence teaching and learning at the school and policy levels and impact curriculum on a large scale. Only through engaging in collaborative types of research activities can university researcher/teacher educators make impact, formulate theories and further knowledge and contribute to the wealth of good practices that already exist. Without vision, there is indeed, little hope for development. Documents from the Education Department generally express a "training model mentality" with little expression of the need for long-term developmental approach to in-service teachers professional growth and development (e.g . ECR7 Chapter 6, p.35-41). Without a broader collaborative view of personally relevant professional engagement, there can be little hope for the planned curriculum changes to take place. As it is now, only cursory mention and attention are afforded to this approach to teacher development in education documents (e.g. Hong Kong Government,

1997b, 10.19, p.123).

References

Brock, M. N., Yu, B. & Wong M. (1992). "Joumaling together" Collaborative diary-keeping and teacher development. In J. Flowerdew, M. N. Brock & S. Hsia (Eds). Perspectives on second language teacher education (pp. 295-307). Hong Kong: City

Polytechnic of Hong Kong.

Bums, A. (1999). Collaborative action research for English language


teachers. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Carless, D.R. (1997). Managing systemic' change: A critical analysis of Ho~g Kon~'s Target-Oriented Curriculum initiative. InternatlOnal Revzew of Education, 43 (4), 349-66.

Carless, D. R. (,1999). Persp~ctives on the cultural appropriacy of Hong Kong s Target-Onented Curriculum (TOC) initiative. Language Culture and Curriculum, 12 (3), 238-253.

Carr, W. & Kemmis, S. (1986). Becoming critical: Education knowledge and action research. London: Falmer Press. '

Celebrating an English failure. (2001· June 18) South Chin "A . Post. ,. a IViornzng

Chan, Y. H. (.1 :96). Action. research as professional development for ELT practltIOners. Working Papers in ELT and Applied Linguistics 2 (1), 17-28. Hong Kong: Hong Kong Polytechnic University. ,

Cheng, YC. (2000, June). The quest for quality education in Hong Kong: Theory ~nd practice. Paper presented at the Comparative Ed~catlOn Polzcy Workshop Series 2. Comparative Education Pohc~. Re~earch. Unit: Department of Public and Social AdmIlllstratlOn: CIty Umversity of Hong Kong.

Clark, J. C. Scarino, A. and Brownell J A (1994) T • h r' ' " . improvzng t e qua zty 0t. learnzng: A framework for target-oriented curriculum renewa.l In Hong Kong. Hong Kong: Institute of Language III

EducatIOn.

Co~hran-Smith, M. & Fries, M.K. (2001). Sticks and stones, and Ideology: The discourse of refonn in teacher education. Educational Researcher, 30 (8), 3-15.

Cole, A.L. ~ Knowles, A.G. (1993). Teacher development partnership research. A focus on methods and issues. American Educational Research Journal, 30 (3),473-495.

Crawford, N. (1999, February). Action research within a teacher


education programme to prepare teachers for working . with special needs populations. Paper presented at International Conference on Teacher Education, Hong Kong.

Curtis, A. (1999). Use of action research in exploring the use of spoken English in Hong Kong classrooms. lin . Y.M. ~heAah. & S.M. Ng (Eds.), Language instructiona lssues In . szan classrooms (pp. 75-88). Newark, DE: IDAC, InternatIOnal

Reading Association.

Education Commission (1990). Education Commission Report no. 4. The curriculum and behavioural problems in schools. Hong Kong:

Government Printer.

Education Commission (1997a). Education Commission ~eport No 7. Quality school education. Hong Kong: Government Pnnter.

Education Commission (1997b). Report on review of 9-year compulsory education. Hong Kong: Government Printer.

Education COlTIlnission (2000). Review of education system. Reform proposals. Consultation document. Hong Kong: Government

Printer.

Education Department (1997). Teacher survey 1996. Hong Kong: Government Printer.

Fullan, M .. G. & Hargreaves, A. (1992). Teacher development and educational change. London: The Falmer Press.

Gow, L., Kember, D. & McKay, J. (1996). Improving' stud~nt learning through action research into teaching. In D. A. WatkIns, & J.B. Biggs (Eds.), The Chinese learner: Cultural, psychological and contextual irifluences. (pp. 243-268). Hong Kong: CERC.

Hargreaves, A. (1999). Reinventing professionalsi~: Teacher education and teacher development for a changmg world. Asia-Pacific Journal of Teacher Education and Develppment, 2(1), 65-74.


Hirvel.a, A. & Law, E. (1991). A survey of local English teachers' attItudes toward English and ELT . ..International Language in Education Journal, 8, 25-38.

Ho,. B. & Ric~~rds, J. C. (1993). Reflective thinking through teacher Journal wntmg: Myths and realities. Prospects, 8(3), 7-24.

Hong.Kong Government (2000, May 24). Press Release: Benchmarking raIses teachers' professionalism and students' language standards. http://www.info.gov.hkJgiaigeneral/200005/24.htm

Lange, D.L. (1990). A blueprint for a teacher development program. In J.C. Richards & D. Nunan (Eds.), Second language teacher education (pp. 245-268). New York: Cambridge University Press.

Li, W.S., .Yu, W. M., Lam, T.S., and Fok, P. K. (1998, April). The end of actIOn research? The case for Hong Kong. Paper presented at the International Teacher Education Conference. Teacher Education in the Asian Region: Policy and Practice. East China Nonnal University, Shanghai, PRC.

Li, W.S., Yu, W M., Lam, T.S., and Fok, P. K. (1999). The lack of action research: The case of Hong Kong. Educational Action Research, 7 (1), 33-49.

Li, W. S. (2001, May 5). "Finally ready to tap teachers' experience", South China Morning Post, pp. 5.

Mahon, T. & Tinker Sachs, G. (1995). A collaborative approach to developing the teaching of reading in English as a foreign language. Conference Proceedings of the International Teacher Education Conference-Teacher Education for the Asian Region, (pp. 242 -250). Hong Kong: The University of Hong Kong.

Mahoney,. D., Det~ramani, C. & Yu, B. (1991). Let's do something about It. An actIon research case study. Perspectives 3(2), 25-43.

McLean, J. (1995) Improving education through action research: A guide for administrators and teachers. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.


Mok, K.H. & Lee, H.H. (2000, June). A reflection of quality assurance in Hong Kong s higher education. Paper prese~ted at the Comparative Education Policy Wor~shop Senes 2. Comparative Education Poli~y R~searc~ U~lt, Department of Public and Social AdministratlOn, CIty UnIverSIty of Hong Kong.

Nunan, D. (1989). Understanding language classrooms. A guide for teacher-initiated action. New York: Prentice-Hall.

Nunan, D. (1992). Research methods in language learning. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Nunan, D. (1994). The more things change the more they stay the same: Or why action research doesn't work. In D. Nunan, R. Berry and V. Berry (Eds.), Bringing about change in language education. Proceedings of the International Language in Education Conference (pp.1-19). Hong Kong: Department of Curriculum Studies, The University of Hong Kong.

Oja, S. N. (1989). Teachers: Ages and stages of adult development. In M.L. Holly and C. S. McLaughlin (Eds.), Perspectives on teacher professional development. London: Falmer Press.

Oja, S;N. & Smulyan, L. (1989). Collaborative action research: A developmental approach. London: Falmer Press.

Pang, S. K. (2000, June). Towards school management reform: Organization values of government schools in Hong Kong. Paper presented at the Comparative Education Policy Workshop Series 2. Comparative Education Policy Research Unit, Department of Public and Social Administration, City University of Hong Kong.

Pennington, M.C. (1996). Modeling teacher change: Relating input to output. Research Monograph No.5. Hong Kong: Department of English, City University of Hong Kong.

Rainey, 1. (2000). Action research and the English as a foreign language practitioner: Time to take stock. Educational Action Research, 8( 1), 65-91.


Richards, J. C. & Lockhart, C. (1991-1992). Teacher development through peer observation. TESOL Jouy''}al, 1(2), 7-10.

Richards, J. C., Tung, P. & Ng, P. (1992). The culture of the English language teacher: A Hong Kong example. RELC Journal 23 (1) 81-102. ' ,

Richards, J.C. & Freeman, D. (1992). Conceptions of teaching and the education of second language teachers. TESOL Quarterly 27 (2), 193-216. '

Sarason, S. B. (1990). The predictable failure of educational reform. Can we change course before it s too late? San Francisco: J ossey-Bass.

Smylie~ M. A. (~996). FrOln bureaucratic control to building human capItal: The Importance of teacher learning in education refonn. Educational Researchel; 25 (9), 9-11.

Somekh, B. (1993). Quality in educational research - the contribution of classroom teachers. In J. Edge & K. Richards (Eds.), Teachers develop teachers research: Papers on classroom research and teacher development (pp. 26-38). Oxford: Heinemann.

Teachers flunk English test. (2001, June 9). South China Morning Post.

Thome, C. & Wang, Q. (1996). Action research in language teacher education. ELT Journal, 50 (3),254-262.

Tinker Sachs, G. (1999). Action research files: An interview with Anne Bums. Networks: An On-line Journal of Teacher Research. Toronto, Canada: OISE, University of Toronto. http://www.oise.utoronto.ca/--ctd/networks/contributorNotes.htmI

Tinker Sachs, G. (2000). Teacher and researcher autonomy in action research. Prospect, A Journal of Australian TESOL, 15 (3), 35-51.

Tinker Sachs, G. & Mahon, T. (1998). A collaborative approach to teacher development. Perspectives, 10 (1), 170-227.

~ '-a~¥:4:::0nResearrn ;n EL T

'" q Tinker Sachs, G., Cheung, J., Pang, D. & Wong, M. (1998).

Transfonning the supervision of Hong Kong's English language

I

I

teachers. Asia-Pacific Journal of Language in Education, 1 (1),

7-32.

Tinker Sachs, G., Lau, L. P.M., Ng, H.T., Sam, M. F., Tam, S. K. & Leung, C.K. (2000). Promoting primary EFL teacher leadership through reading programme development. In P. J. Hung, V. Berry, V. Crew, & C. Davison (Eds.), Discourses and development in language development (pp.185-201). Hong Kong: University of Hong Kong.

Tse, K. C. (2000, June). A critical review of quality education movement in Hong Kong. Paper presented at the Comparative Education Policy Workshop Series 2. Comparative Education Policy Research Unit, Department of Public and Social Administration, City University of Hong Kong

Tsui, A. B. M. (1996). Reticence and anxiety in second language learning. In K. M. Bailey & D. Nunan (Eds.), Voices from the language classroom (pp.145-167). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Van Lier, L. (1989). Classroom research in second language acquisition Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 10, 173-186.

When teachers fail, what chance have our students; (2001, June 19). South China Morning Post.

Zuber-Skerritl, O. (1992). Professional development in higher education: A theoretical framework for action research. London: Kogan Page Ltd.


Appendix A

Fostering and Furthering Effective Practices in the Teachin~ of English-Interview analysis summary (lst InterView - Dec 98; 2nd Interview - Jun 00; 3rd Interview - Oct 00) Number of teachers = 8

Age range: 20-29 yrs = 3; 30-39 yrs = 4; 40 -49 yrs = 1.

Sex: All teachers are female.

Years of teaching/ years of teaching at secondary level: < 2 yrs = 3; 3-5 yrs = 1; 5-10 yrs = 2; 10-15 yrs =1; >15 yrs = 1

lst Interview

Q~alific~tion held at present! major subject studies: HIgher dIploma = 1. (in tr~nslation):; Ba.chelors degree = 4 (Teaching English as a Second Language, EnglI.sh; Engl~sh lIterature and Psychology); Mas~ers de~ree =3 (Teachmg EnglIsh as a Second Language); Postgraduate CertIficate m Education = 3

. 1st Interview Why did you become a teacher? Why among all other careers did you choose teaching? Three of them became teach~rs because they were interested in working with people. Two of them were mf1uenced by their teacher and father who is a teach~r also. Three of them found that teaching is less boring and more meanmgful than their original clerical, banking or translation jobs.

What was your career goal when you first started to teach? Has it changed from then to now? Nearly all of them ha~ the c~reer goal of helping students to learn English better. One .of them saId she Just wanted to have a secure job at first but later she loved teachmg and wanted to be good teacher. One teacher said that her goal had changed from students to effective teaching. One said that she is still far from her goal.

How did you learn English? 1 tIt . B' . . s n erVlew y.readmg books, magazmes and watching films = 3; by self-learning = 2; from

theIr teachers = 2 and was forced to learn = 1.

r I I


. English involve? . . What does learning I . EnglI'sh involves communicatIOn SkIlls.

h ght that earnmg . . Three teachers t ou . th . h ld be a habit and involve everythmg m your

h saId at It s ou 'd . Two of the teac ers . d 't' volves learning the culture. Others sal It

. . d of them salIm ?ally hfe an one ding and memorizing vocabulary. mvolves grammar, rea

b r most about learning English? . . What do you remem e b their teachers who were systematic m teachmg Four of eight teachers remem er books for students and organized games in . English. They brought grammabr her boring teachers who did the most talking

H r one remem ers . . d lessons. oweve, . h mber the grammar, unseen dIctatIon an in class. Others Said that t ey reme vocabulary lessons.

ou were taught? lst Interview Do you teach t~e sameo:~re;ch the same way as they were taught. For those Four teache~s saId tl~ey d h th would follow having a systematic way of

ho apprecIated theIr teac ers, ey .' . :aching; also buying books for students as an msplratIOn.

u like most and like least about EL T? What d01YO l'ke games and activities. The others are all different..They Two teac lers 1 . ' . t and shanng include: interaction i~ class, teachlhng °dral 'l':t Inl'ktlengt~:C~~nryg grammar. Two don't

. 'th uplls Two teac ers 01

~~e;~~n:l~a~~s ~nd its' constrain~s. T?e others don't like to teach language

system in A -level, oral English, hstenmg.

beliefs about how HK pupils should be taught English?

~~~~~e:c~~~s a~~ght that H~:~~:~it~:~ui~:e s~i~g~a~ns~~~=;,e:h:~~ be atmo~f~~eli:~t~or r~~r~:~e::d learn the c~lture of. o~~er. countries. Two said that :~~ents s~ould adopt thinking skills and take the mltIatlve to learn.

Are your beliefs consistent with your practi~e~ :~~f~rT~~~t~~;~hree Four teachers encourage studentshto whork O~tt :o~nd the way as students are used teachers find it difficult because t ey aven . ..' I

., erythI'ng instead of taking the ImtlatIve to earn. to recelvmg ev

h' ? Do ou find your beliefs workable in your teac Ing. FOU~ of them find them workable but the others ~aid that they have to o~;~come students anti-English feeling or there are constramts, syllabus or class SI .


lst Interview Can you tell me something about the backgrbund information of your school? Two teachers said their schools are eMI' schools and two said band 5 schools. One teacher said her school is a band one school in the New Territories. One teacher said that her school has experience in doing projects but it is not easy to change.

Can you tell me something about the background information of your class? Students of most of the teachers are weak in English. Two teachers said that their students are well behaved, kind and obedient. Another teacher pointed out that lots of the students have discipline problems and one teacher also said that most students in her school have family problems.

1st Interview What are your reasons for partiCipating in this action research project? All of them said that they wanted to improve their teaching. Three of them said they were invited by the principals to join the project.

Why did you choose action research? 2nd Interview Seven of them mentioned improving their English teaching while one said that she wanted to enhance students' learning. Another teacher said that the research is smaller in scale, freer ranging and less formal. It is active and repeated search on real life data which is practical.

What does action research mean to you? lst Interview Six teachers said that it includes problem solving or trying out something. Three of them said that it means an experiment with evaluation. Another teacher said that it is a long process, needs great commitment with lots of reading and literature review. And one said that it is a way to push her to think of new ways to change herself.

2nd Interview What does action research mean to you at this present time? Two teachers regard it as an evaluation of their own teaching. Two regard it as a research or project focus on the needs of the subjects, well done and completed, beginning and suited for a full scale paper. Another teacher said it is an attitude of teaching with presentable paper work and it need more preparation for materials collection and data anal . and more work after it.

I CMf refers to schools where Chinese is the medium of instruction as opposed to EMf where English is the medium of instruction for most of the subjects.


What did you want to achieve in your action research? 2nd Interview Five of the teachers talked about student learning. Student learning includes helping students to learn effectively, promoting active ~eading in narr~tive, providing students opportunities to practise and consolIdate grammar Items. Four of the teachers mentioned their own teaching including to have more confidence in teaching, to investigate my way of teaching and to find a new way of teaching grammar. One teacher was concerned about research--in depth investigation of real life data and useful findings applicable to teaching context.

How far do you think you have achieved the objectives of your action research project? Teachers said the students had experienced how to use story grammar and to express opinion, they are less passive. One teacher said her belief that students learn better in groups was strengthened. Another teacher said that she had achieved the objective very slowly and one teacher has achieved two objectives for herself but no time to help students to produce the final version of their report.

What did you do in the lessons for your action research? All teachers did different things in the lessons. They included to help students construct a survey, to demonstrate how to understand a narrative, to ask students to read a passage and to have group discussion, to do grammar tasks and to let students to do more group tasks by making a class newsletter. Four teachers did group work in the lessons. One teacher said she was executing the plans, observing, documenting and collecting data during the lessons.

What do your pupils learn in English language lessons? 1st Interview Half of the teachers said pupils learn the things required by the syllabus and textbooks in order to sit for examinations. Two said that they learn the four skills in English, two said basic grammar and one said reading.

How satisfied are you with the ways your pupils are learning English? All teachers commented their students were passive and lack motivation to learn. don't understand the lessons and their foundation was weak.

2nd Interview What did you want your pupils to do in the lessons in your action research? Threeteachers said that they want their pupils to take more initiative in learning. Two of the teachers want pupils to learn peer learning with one focussing on social and cognitive skills and another focussing on grammar items. One teacher said that she wanted pupils to learn how to read independently with less control from the teacher.


What d.o you t.hink your pupils have learnt through your action research? They thlIl~ pupIls have learnt to work cooperatively, willing to share ideas and grammar Items. One teacher said it is not up to this process and one hasn't responded to this question.

D'd t d . 3rd Interview I your s u ent~ like your action research? How do you know that? Do

you have any eVidence?

~earl~ all teachers said that their students liked the action research. Students hked It because the~ got some happiness and doing something extraordinary. Only one teacher Said half of her students liked it but half did not.

Did your students have any improvement after your action research? ~ow do you know that? Do you have any evidence? SI: teachers said that students h~d. improvement such as personal response, thmk faster.than before, more wIllmg to present idea, pick up skills or improved result of qUIZ and exam. One teacher said she couldn't see any improvement yet.

I t h' E . 1st Intel'view . n eac Ing nghsh, what is the most challenging thing? Was it the same I~ the past? If not, how do you adjust to such changes? SIX teachers' most challenging aspects related to their students: to make students unders~and, ~emember something and to have breakthrough. The other two,teachers saId theIr challen?es were they don't know everything and they don t have the method to try dIfferent things.

What influences your teaching most? ~alf of the tea~hers said t~at students influence their teaching most. They mcl~de students level, emotIOn and reaction. Two of them were influenced by p~evIOus teachers a~d one b~ her father. One teacher said that the relationship WIth colleagues, theIr enthusIasm and support influenced her teaching most.

I h' 3rd Interview s,t ~re any c.h~~ge In your, language teaching practice and/or your

thinking after J~lmng the action research project? In what specific ways? Four teachers sa~d.t~at they have changed in teaching by using more new methods and a~t1VIties. Another four teachers said that they were concerned ~ore ~bout theIr students: more tolerant of their thinking, have different views 1Il theIr performance and let students participate more.

I


Do you think action research is practic~l/appl~cable to your teaching?, Six teachers said that it is applicable to their teachmg as one can see students improvement and one can apply new ide~s !O t~e teaching ~f reading. Two teachers said that it is not applicable and It IS tIme consummg.

Do you think action research is practical for teachers in Ho~g Kong? It is interesting that those who have positive answers for the prevIOus questI~n said that action research is not so practical for Hong Kong teachers because It involves a lot of work, it is time consuming and may be boring. For the two teachers who answered no to that question they said that it is practical for ~ong Kong teachers in helping them to identify teachers' own problems and provIded that they are not required to follow the syllabus.

What are the constraints that affect your job performance? 1st Interview Four teachers said that school system, syllabus, time or colleagues are the constraints. Two teachers related them to their students' attitude, standard and classroom management. One teacher said the constraints are from pressure of workload and one teacher said it is from pressure of vocal parents.

Are there any other things that you'd like to tell us about yourself as a ~a~e~ . Only three teachers responded to this question. One said that she would hke to be the best teacher in the school so that students benefit most. Another teacher said that she is trying to do her best. The last teacher said she is sensitive to students'reactions.

3rd Interview Do you feel that action research can assist your professional development? .. . Seven teachers said that action research could assIst theIr profeSSIOnal development. They said that it can help them to know. more about teaching . methods, to reflect on their teaching, to keep them gomg and to upgrade theIr professionalism. Only one teacher said it couldn't assist.

Action research is said to empower teachers, do you feel more empowered or less empowered or the same with regard to the action research you have done? . . . . . Six teachers had a positive answer. Two of them Said It gIves them better abIlIty for reflection. One said that she managed to plan her own methodology and doing some kind of professionalism. One said that she is enriched by the project from the feedback and colleagues in other schools. Other two teachers saId they were not empowered because one was left behind in the schedule and one thought that it should match with the syllabus.


2nd Interview What conclusions about action rese9rch have you drawn after participating in this project?

Teachers' conclusions were quite positive. They said that the extensive reading ~p on relevant materials is useful, it helps both teachers and students to develop, It was ~ good chance for teachers to review their own teaching and do somethmg they want to or need to. Though it is laborious, it is reflective. Only o~e teacherconc1~ded. that there are so many written reports and that is big dIsadvantage considenng the workload of teachers in Hong Kong.

3rd Interview Can you tell me ~bout your experience in doing action research in your school? (the easIest aspect; the most difficult aspect) Four teachers said tha~ time ,:as the most difficult part of the project. They had heavy workload and dIfficulties to catch up with the teaching schedule. Three of the teachers said their difficulties related to the steps and process of the action re~earch such as formulating a plan, gathering data or writing up report. One Said the she didn't have actual support from school and colleagues and had to do everything on her own.

Ist Interview How satisfied a~e you with the way you are teaching English at present? Three teacher.s saId t~ey were not satisfied or they needed improvement. Two were ~ery satisfied ~Ith their ways of teaching and one said that it was okay. She tr.Ied new teachmg methods though it was not effective. One teacher said it was dIfficult to say if it is good or not after using different teaching methods.

2nd Interview How satisfied are you with the way you are teaching English at the present?

Half of the teachers are satisfied with the way they are teaching and half of them are not. Those satisfied said they are continuously improving and striving to do better a~d better, have more confidence when teaching. Two teachers said they .needed Improveme~t in sp.eaking or structuring of tasks and cooperative leammg. One te~cher Said ~he IS not satisfied because she stopped doing her work for a long tIme. One Said that she couldn't fully utilize herself in teaching.

. 3rd Interview H.ow satisfied ~r~ you with your own action research project? FIve teachers saId It was okay and three teachers among them said that the result wo.uld be b.etter i~ more time was given. Another two teachers were very satIsfied WIth theIrs while one teacher said that she was not satisfied because she did not have enough time for preparation.


What benefits do you anticipate? . . 1st I.nterview All of them anticipated different things. They included trammg that guIdes and pushes her to read relevant materials on teaching a?d practis~ it in the classroom, helps her to design some creative teachmg matenal and encourages students' participation in grammar lesson, can do what she had pla~ed before and learn something, found out what she doesn't know about teachmg and new ways, share teaching techniques with other teachers and evaluate her own

methods. 2nd Interview

What benefits did you anticipate from the action research and have they

been realised? Two teachers' anticipation related to students such as enjoyment duri~g the lesson and given opportunities to make meaningful uses of grammar.ltems and collaborative learning. Two teachers were concerned more about therr professional development. The other two anticipa.ted designing and keeping a collection of grammar tasks and doing more readmg related to the research

project. . . ' Three teachers said that their anticipations had been reahsed. One said that It takes time and attention from the teacher and one said she had done only a few

3rd Interview

Did you gain anything by participating in this project? (e~ample) . Six teachers said that this project gave them better understandmg on teachmg methods and action research. One teacher said her students are happier and enjoy their lessons. One teacher was still thinking about the gains.

What difficulties do you anticipate? lst Interview Four pointed out the time constraint and anticipated the heavy workload. Two teachers worried about the methodology and the findings. One said that other colleagues are not concerned and the other, speaking in front of a big group of

people.

2nd Interview

What are the problems that you encountered in your action research? Time is the major problem for all the teachers. Five teachers said it is a constraint. Tight schedule is another problem that two teachers mentioned. The other problems include unfavourable class size, class room settings, students' insufficient knowledge, not too much experience practicing group work, heavy workload and frustrating communication between teacher researcher and RAs. Also one teacher said that she encountered in data collection.

','\J

~:


. 3rd Interview Old yo~ have any difficulties in car~ing out the project? For example, in the action research cycle: (most difficult; less difficult part), explain please. Ge~erally speaking, teachers did not have difficulties in every step of the proJect. Inst~ad, four teachers thought that lack of time is the main difficulty they h~d dunng the process. One teacher said that she had no problem at all by followmg the schedule from the research team. (1) identifying problems: All teachers did not have difficulties in this area (2) formu~ating a plan/ steps/ procedures: Only two teachers found it diffi~ult. (3) ga~h.enng and analysing your data: Two teachers said it was difficult. (4) wntmg and publicizing your report: Four teachers said it was difficult with three of them pointed out the problem of time.

lst Interview What help do you need to ensure that your project succeeds? Fou~ teache:s have similar ideas that they needed guidance, advice, direction ~nd mst~ctlOns. Three other teachers thought that they needed appropriate mformatlOn and material. One said that she wanted to arrange her work by herself with someone her.

2nd Interview How do you feel about the support and help provided by the research team? Five teachers said the support is velY good and include useful literature and new thought, fruitful discussions about teaching of English, expel1ise, well-paced, speedy on demand and considerate. They reduced much of teacher's workload. Only one teacher said it is better to give more support.

Any other observations about this project, your action research on the help you received? One teach~r said the research team is caring and sharing. Another teacher said it could be gIven more funds, manpower to give it the pUblicity it deserves.

3rd Interview What do y~u think are th.e strengths and weaknesses of this project? Strengths: FIve teachers saId that the help given by the research team is the stre~gt~ of this project. Another teacher said this project gave teacher motlvatlOn

Wea~e~ses: Two teachers said the project was too long and two said that time was limIted. O~her. teachers mentioned different weaknesses. They include not enough commumcatlOn and support in providing materials; no support from sch~ol .or from colleagues; individual work and not having clear direction at the begmnmg.

I


Any other things you would like to tal~ abo~t regardin.g th.is project? One teacher talked about her experience 10 shanng her proJ ect 10 the staff development day outside of her school.

3rd Interview Have you shared your AR project with anyone (e.g. at staff meeting, at a symposium etc.) formally! informally? . One teacher said she shared her AR project at a sympOSIUm and at the staff development day of another school. Two teachers said they shared it informally and with project teachers of their schools. Two said that they didn't have much sharing as colleagues were not interested. Other three teachers said they had no sharing at all.

Do you think it is important to share your work with others? All te(1chers agreed that it is important to share their work with others. Three of them said that it is better to share in other schools.

3rd Interview How do your colleagues feel about your involvement in this project? Three teachers said that their colleagues did not know about it. The other teachers' colleagues had negative feeling towards them. Colleagues think they are stupid, showing-off and very brave in taking on a time consuming burden.

Did they support you in anyway? What about your panel chair, the administrators (principal, vice-principal etc.) in your school? Only one teacher said that she gained support with project members. All the others said they did not gain support from their colleagues. Principals supported them only by inviting them to join or showing encouragement. Only one teacher said that her principal did not support her.

3rd Interview Will you continue to carry out action research in your class in the future? Why? Why not? . . Only three teachers said that they would continue to carry out actlOn research 10

their class. One teacher said that she will learn the spirit of doing small-scale action research but difficult for her to do the paper work. One teacher said that she doesn't have any ideas as the moment. The other three teachers said that they would not.


Would you recommend this type of professional development to other teachers? Why? Why not?

All teacher~ said the~ would recommend AR to others. Three teachers gave reasons whIch were: It can .provide insights in teaching, a very good professional development and worth d01Og. Three teachers set the conditions for reco.mmending to ?th~r teachers provided that they have time, the curriculum is fleXIble and the pnncipal really gives full support. Two teachers said that it is better to motivate and attract teachers with the idea first.

Would you pa~icipate in another AR project again? Why? Why not? F~ur teac.hers SaId they :-V0uld not participate in another AR project again. One SaId that It d.epends .on tIme and pap~r work. One said that she would participate once she fillls~es thIS one and one saId yes but not in the next two years. Only one teacher SaId that she would join for sure.

Framing Action Research" Gertrude Tinker Sachs

Orientations

Whether we are novice or experienced teachers, how do we maintain the freshness and excitement of the challenges of teaching? Teaching is considered to be boring by some educators probably because teaching may have become routine and very predictable for them. Because we work within institutional contexts, we cannot ignore all the everyday organisational routines of our schools, but we can bring excitement to our teaching if we engage in the challenges of inquiry through adopting an action research paradigm to support our professional development.

The excitement and challenges of inquiry through action research can be found in developing a critical and reflective stance to the work that we do as educators. The excitement of inquiry is embedded in uncertainty, which brings anticipation of the unknown: how our students will react, what we will do or say, and (in general), how our inquiry will affect ourselves, students, colleagues and the school as a whole. The challenges are also steeped in the dilemmas and decision-making that we need to face along the way as we question our theories and practice, as well as those of others. Determining which steps to take to investigate our inquiries add to our challenges. Being critical and reflective is central to the inquiry process. We are critical in the sense of developing' a stance or a position. We adopt a particular viewpoint through questioning and examining what lies

I I am grateful to Anne Bums for generous feedback on this chapter.

~"'r,-·'·~ .;.

r~~~ t{ 68 Action Research in EL T ~

1 beneath the surface of an action, discourse or ideology. Reflecting during the process of inquiry helps us to focus on deeper issues and consider alternative ways of thinking, doing and interpreting. In dialectical terms, this means that instead of thinking in dichotomies of "either or", we begin to consider, for example, both subjective and objective e1ementssuch as "both and" and "also on the other hand ... " (Kemmis and Wilkinson, 1998, p. 28). The inquiry process into ~ur own actions and those of our learners and other educatIOn stakeholders is an uneasy and challenging journey that is often rewarded with serendipitous insights into our strengths and weaknesses.

Action Research

American social psychologist, Kurt Lewin is conunonly referred to as one of the earliest pioneers of action research (AR). Adelman (1993) notes that during his career in the 1930s - 40s, Lewin believed that AR could make a difference for social planning and action. The initial target of Lewin's work was not teachers but fieldworkers with an interest in improving relations with the disadvantaged. Lewin's work was devoted to helping the disadvantaged overcome "exploitation and colonialisation" (Adeleman 1993, p.8) through action research and central to his work was denl0cratic participation. Bums (in press a) credits the work of Corey (e.g.1949) in the US as one of the first attempts to popularise AR with teachers but this did not meet with great success and AR did not begin to take a strong foothold until the late sixties and early seventies. Bums (ibid) attributes this rise in interest to the influential work of J. J. Schwab (e.g.1969) in curriculum inquiry in the United States and Stenhouse (e.g.1971) in Great Britain. Other early AR revivalists were Kemmis and his colleagues at Deakin University in Australia; Kember and Kelley (1993) cite their work of as one of the influential forces in the resurgence of interest in AR.

Kemmis & McTaggart (1988) define action research as:

A form of collective self-reflective enquiry undertaken by participants in social situations in order to improve the

Framing Action Research 69

rationality and justice of their own social or educational practices, as well as their understandings of these practices and the situations in which these practices are carried out (p.S)

They state unequivocally that:

:r~e ~pproach is only action when it is collaborative, though ~t IS I~portant to realise that the action research of the group IS achIeved through critically examined action of individual group members (p.6).

In later work, Kemmis and Wilkinson (1998) reiterate that while AR is freque~tly conducted as "a solitary process of systematic self-reflectIOn" they believe that it is still best conceptualised "in collaborative terms" (p. 22). Action researchers are not only teachers but as Kemmis and McTaggart (1988) remind us, they could be "teachers, students, principals, parents and other community memb~rs-any group with a shared concern" (p.S). Researchers from such dIverse fields as healthcare (e.g. Nichols, 1997) and business and management (e.g. Somekh & Thaler, 1997) are but a few reflecting an interest in AR. AR is also known by various tenns such as P~r:icipatory ~ction Research (PAR), Teacher Research (TR), PractItIOner . InqUIry (PI) and Reflective Practice (RP). Action Research WIll be used throughout this chapter as a conunon nomenclature for all forms of AR. Definitions of these variants are given at the end of this chapter. Action research should not be confused with the terms, classroom research and teacher research as these reflect different philosophical and methodological orientations (Bums, in. press b). Classroom research centres upon the classroom and exammes such aspects as classroom interaction (e.g. Chaudron, 1988; Long, 1983). Teacher research, as the term suggests, is done by teac~ers and cou~d cover any aspect of teaching. But, as noted earlier, AR IS not restncted to teachers. Despite the different emphases, classr~om resear~h and teacher research both aim at improving educat~onal practIce. But they, like action research, face an uphill battle m how they are perceived in the field of research. There is an on-going debate in the educational literature about the merits of AR as a viable research method. The next section discusses some of the

I

i I I i

I I


beliefs underpinning the views about AR vis-a-vis other forms of

research.

Notions of Research

Inquiry and knowledge creation is not the sole .purview of anyone group of people. All of us as individuals ~re creatI~g knowledge every day as we go about our activities and lIfe .expenences. V!e may not call this research because it is not studIed formally III the way researchers do but this "research" does inform our decision-making. Educational research, as it is presently generated, by those wh~ work in universities often remains as academic work only and has lIttle or no impact on' the practice, work or thinking of front-line ~du~ators (e.g. Allwright & Bailey, 1991, Zeichner, 1995). ThIS IS an unfortunate state of affairs for all educators, but, teachers, themselves, can tum their everyday "research" into something more formalised and systematised to yield important insights into their own actions. Teachers have the potential, with the right amount of support, to be the generators of knowledge about practices of education and need not always be consumers of research produced by others (Cochran-Smith & Lytle, 1990; Cochran-Smith & Lytle, 1998; Lytle & Cochran-Smith, 1992). In fact, some researchers believe that" a growing practitioner research movement will lead to greater - not less _ demand for outsider research" (Anderson and Herr, 1999, p. 15). In other words, teachers' action research can increase the demand for university researchers' research. However, the two forms of research, practitioner and outsider, are complimentary, share the same variables and co-exist in many different forms. Table 1 compares the characteristics of AR with other types of research (e.g. experimental,

quasi experimental).

Table 1 AR and Other Types of Research

Features Action Research "

Duration Usually conducted over a short period of time

Size of the Usually small-scale project Context Classroom-based or

school-based and may involve one or more school contexts usually within the same region

Key Involves one or more investigators teachers from a school

or several schools

Ethical Usually informal Considerations consent is given as the

student participants are known to the teachers and the purpose is beneficial to the parties involved

Focus Investigates one or more practical teaching/ learning factor(s)

Design Practical and manageable in design to allow for teacher(s)' workload and teaching purposes


Other Research Types

May be of short or long duration depending on purpose May be large or small scale May be cIassroOln or whole school-based involving one or more schools within one region or several regions One or more academic investigators from one or more investigative sites. May also include teachers and other research support personnel. Formal consent procedures apply, usually participants are unknown to key investigators

Investigates one or more theoretical and/ or practical teaching/ learning factor( s) May be more complex in design to meet other educational purposes (e.g. control and experimental groups)

I

1 J

, ,


Research Utilises one or more Usually multiple

Tools and research tools to collect research tools to collect

Data and analyse the data. and analyse the data.

Collection Usually simple and Usually complex Procedures straightforward procedures.

procedures.

Results Usually localised to a May be localised specific class/ and! or generalised to a teaching/learning wider educational community or context community with with practical theoretical and implications practical implications

Sharing of May be formal or May be both formal

Results informal and reported in and informal and local or international reported in local or refereed journals for the international refereed benefit of those who journals for the benefit teach of those in the

academic community

Table I shows the overlapping nature of AR and other types. of research. However, teaching and action research about teachmg should not be considered as second class activities whe~ compa~ed to the research work of others in the education commumty. SImIlarly, action research should not be considered superior to the work of others. Both forms of research have similar goals, to i~prove ~ur understanding of educational practices and promote effective tea~hmg and learning for all learners. They both are viable ~nd contnb~te, albeit from different vantage points, to our understandmg of teachmg and learning forces. It is iluportant that teachers, teac~er ~ducat?rs and all those who are a part of the educational commumty, mcludmg parents, and community leaders, begin to vie:" teaching and r~search about teaching of equal worth and Impact. Accordmg to Cochran-Smith and Lytle (1998) the nature of teaching ~nd research on teaching is seen as:


How teachers' actions are infused with complex and multi-layered understandings of I t1arners , cultures, class, gender, literacy, social issues, institutions, communities, materials, texts and curricula. It is about how teachers work together to develop and alter their questions and interpretative frameworks, informed not only by thoughtful consideration of the immediate situation and the particular students they teach and have taught but also the multiple contexts-social, political, historical and cultural-within which they work. (p.24)

In looking at the research methods used by those in schools and those in universities, Bailey (1998) stresses that "none can be said, a priori and out of context, to be superior or inferior to others. It is simply a matter of appropriateness" (p. 98). Tucker and Donato (1995) explain that the" difference between action research and basic research is one of degree (their italics) rather than kind as both types of research are forms of inquiry" (p. 454). The researchers charge that teachers' research reports is often excluded from other fonus of research because teachers usually do not have easy access to the tools and discourse of the research con1ll1unity. Freeman (I 996) suggests that to assist teachers in accessing the discourses of the research community, new genres are needed. These genres should allow teachers to write and publish their reports in their own voices. In other words, he believes that "research that reveals the identity of the teller is critical in both the political and epistemological sense" (p.ll 0). The chapters written by the teachers in this book attest to this view. In the following section we examine more closely the processes involved in action research.

Action Research Processes

Action research is usually described as a cycle or series of events that spiral in a continuous process. Because AR is a spiraling process, there is much overlapping and changes are anticipated as groups go through the processes. Kemmis and Wilkinson (1998) describe the entire AR process as "fluid, open and responsive" (p.21). Bums (1999) has identified the main processes as a "series of interrelated


. "(p 35) and not so much as a cycle as commonly expenences.. '.1 d all are identified. The key processes, howev~r: are SI~1 ar an reflective and involve collaborative deCISIOn-making. :he proce~~e~

include, identifying a focus for your AR, pla~~:g c~a~g:n~:fl:~t~:g and observing the process and consequences .0 , (K mmis on these rocesses and re-planning in a contmuous process e and Wil~son, 1998). Table 2 identifies the key AR processes as seen b different researchers. All the researchers in Table 2 th?ugh usmg ~ . I . dentify similar processes but they dIffer on the different termmo ogy, I . £ K mmis and

last process which is sharing the res~lts m some orm.. e. n as M T rt (1988) do not identify thIS process but shanng IS see

c agga . AR t nly affirms the work that vital to the profession. Shanng our no 0

we do as teachers but it also helps to disseminate knowled~~ abo~ good practices as well as adding to the data base about teac mg an learning.

Table 2 Action Research Key Processes

Processes/ Kimmis and Nunan Freeman Burns Researchers McTaggart (1994, p. 3-4) (1998, p. 38) (1999, p. 35)

(1988, p. 14)

-1 Reflect on Problem/ Inquiry Exploring and

action puzzle identifying identification

2 Plan and act Preliminary Question! Planning investigation puzzle

3 Observe Hypothesis Data collection Collecting data

4 Revise plan Plan Data analysis Analysing/ intervention reflecting

5 Outcome Understandings Hypothesising /speculating

6 Reporting "Publishing" - Intervening making public and observing

7 Reporting, writing and presenting


The key processes will be discussed further throughout the remainder of this chapter. The teachers' reports in, subsequent chapters also exemplify the key processes. In this following sections, some of the key issues that concern teachers about AR will be addressed. Some recommendations to help minimize these special constraints, will be offered.

The Demands of Action Research

Time

Action research requires teachers to give or find some time to sustain and support their professional development. Tinle is the most often quoted constraint by teachers around the world in conducting action research (e.g., Adelman & Walking-Eagle, 1997; Rainey, 2000; Li et aI, 1999; Bums (Chapter 1) and Tinker Sachs (Chapter 2) this edition) because teachers have so little of it. Teachers need to be creative and resourceful in finding time to accommodate their AR work. Teachers who work together in the same school could try to get a non-teaching period when they are all available to discuss their work or they can meet after school once or twice a week. Those from different schools can try to meet on alternative weekends or after school hours on a weekday at another school or institution where they can discus their work.

Collaborating with Others

For action research to be inspirational, it is really important for teachers to collaborate with other like-minded teachers in their school and/or with teachers from other schools. A critical mass ensures that teachers motivate and energize each other through the rich exchange of ideas. In far too many school contexts, teachers work alone, plan alone, teach alone and carry the burdens of teaching, alone. When we begin to discuss and share, all aspects of our professional lives, our work takes on a different hue and texture.


Keeping a Journal

Keeping a journal is also one of the most ?ften cited demands .of action research. However, keeping a journal IS not synonymous wIth AR and is it not a requirement in order to engage in action research .. If keeping a journal is a chosen methodology, it can be ~ worthwhIle tool to help the teacher to focus on many issues whIch often go unarticulated or unexamined in teaching. Some of the teacher-researchers in this book have used journals and other have not. However, the tacit understandings that we have a?out our c~~ssroom practices need to be explicated and critiqued and Journal. wntmg can help to challenge us. Bailey, Curtis and Nunan (200 1 ~ be~Ieve that ~he process of keeping a journal can be "very beneficIal m furth.enng professional development" (p.48). The write~s state. that keepmg a jou11)al can help us to see patterns in o~r .teac~mg, artIculate problems, and helps us to vent frustrations. In addItIon, Journals can be us~d as.a data collection tool. However, a way to offset the concerns of tIme, IS to decide on how much to write, what to focus on for that entry ~nd when and how to do it. Journal entries do not need to be very detaIled or well constructed. They can be written in note or point forn1 and elaborated upon as time allows. Identifying a focus will also help .to address the key concerns in a more timely fashion. When to wnte really depends on when time can be spared but it is usually best to do so soon after the lesson or sometime later that day to lessen the effec~s of forgetting. Some teachers use different fra~eworks .to support theIr journal writing (e.g.Tinker Sachs and Kong, 1998) whIle others prefer to adopt a free and open style of responding to their classroom events. Another aid to journal keeping is to use the tape rec.order a~d record one's thoughts and observations when pressed for tIm~. ThIS can. be supplemented later with journal entries. Journal k~epmg and. d~mg action research will place extra demands on teacher s already hmited available time.

Research Skills

Many teachers cite lack of research skill~ as a pro~lem w~en engaging in AR. Many report their sense of madequacy ~n know~ng which tools to use, which teaching approaches to adopt, whIch assessment techniques, and which statistical analyses to use to


analyse their data. This is why it is recommended that teachers do not work alone because many of these problems can be solved through group work and in collaboration with colleagues. It is also recommended that where possible, teachers collaborate with university-based educators who are familiar with educational research and can assist with advising on which tools and techniques to adopt. For most teachers, it is reasonable to select frequency counts to tabulate their quantitative data. Depending on the amount of data, they can perfonn the calculations by hand or use a statistical package (e.g. SPSS or Microsoft Excel). If this proves to be too burdensome, the group of teachers might consider hiring someone who is familiar with the statistical programmes to work with their data. However, teachers should not let their unfamiliarity with research tools and techniques limit their work. There are many ways to seek help. We tum now to ways of starting the AR process.

Getting Started

The Focus of Your Action Research

When a builder goes out to start the creation of a building s/he usually has blueprints to guide the development of the building based on her/his preliminary ideas. Fonn a study group of like-n1inded teachers from your school or a combination of other schools and begin with a general discussion of the issues and problems that concern you all about teaching. By the end of the session, identify some connnon areas of interest and assign each person to locate one article on the subject for sharing at the next meeting. Based on the readings, the groups' collective past experiences and understandings of your students and your school contexts, develop a blueprint for your AR. Detennine your time line and begin to develop your ideas based on the AR processes and approaches which have been identified in Tables 1 and 2. At the end of this book are several references to assist you with getting started. Consult these sources for additional ideas on getting started with your project. You may want to make your reading of these references the focus for one of your preliminary meetings so that everyone understands the processes involved in developing an AR project. The teachers' chapters in this book also provide you with

I 'j


an excellent resource for how others went about their action research projects and what they found out. Be sure to read them and include them in your group discussions of how others went about exploring their practices. Bailey (2001a) has written a very clear and succinct chapter entitled, "Twenty Questions about Action Research" which might also be a useful starting point to address some of the questions you might have before commencing your work. Bailey (200Ib, p. 492) cites her own work which depict some of the popular areas for research on second language classrooms. These include:

• Students' pattern of participation in language classrooms

• Investigations of language teachers' behaviours

• Teachers' treatment of learners' (oral) errors

• Individual student or teacher variables

• Teacher talk in second language classrooms

• Leamer behaviour in second language classrooms

• Teacher and student interaction in second language classrooms

The questions that you raise may be similar or different. The most important consideration is that the question, dilemma or problem that is identified is one that is meaningful to you and your group of teachers.

Being Systematic

Action research requires some specific attention to fine tuning your research questions so that they are manageable for your daily work schedule and your AR time frame. AR also requires commitment to systematic inquiry. This means that when you select a method(s) or instrument(s) to gather data to address your questions, you are committed to those tools to help you examine critically, over time, the questions that you are trying to answer.

You need to be careful in selecting the tools that you will use to gather data on your teaching practices (e.g. questionnaire, lesson transcriptions, student interviews, student exam results etc.). Not only do you need to be systematic in your procedures, but you also need to


find time to examine what you are doing. As mentioned earlier some teachers keep a journal to record their responses to the activiti~s that they are doing and this helps to supplement their more objective ~orms of data gathering. In other words, whatever you decide to do, it IS good to a~here t~ some form of systematic principles of enquiry over a set penod of tIme.

Suppose for example, you are a panel chair or department chair in your school and you want to examine your leadership skills. You want t~ know whether you are a democratic or autocratic leader (e.g. Tmker Sachs, et al. 1998; Tinker Sachs, et al. 2000). You decide to keep re~ords of the meetings that you conduct with teachers over the academIC year. When you read the transcriptions of those meetings you realise that you seldom allow teachers to air their opinions~ However, ~ver t?e course of the year, this pattern changes with all teachers be~n~ gIven a chance to articulate their views. You decided that tr~nscnptIOns were the best means of gathering data but you also made Journal ent~es which reflected how you felt after each meeting. :V0ur Journal entnes were important for they helped to capture some Issues that your transcriptions could not convey such as what happened before or after the lesson, how certain teachers reacted or how you felt. .Your main tools in this case, were your transcripti~ns ~nd al.so your Journal. Other tools could have been questionnaires and mtervIews w~ich could have been used to gather teachers' views on your leadershIp style.

How long your AR should take is really up to you. Some teachers work. on ~R projects from several weeks up to several months. The sustamabIhty of your project depends on your commitment to it and the type(s) of support you have.

Facing Ourselves

Questioning our own practice, habits and routines is not easy as most of us develop comfort zones which enable us to work and function every day. Sarason (1990) tells us that "no one warmly seeks let alone embraces, si~ificant intellectual and personal change" (p. ~ii). When we questIOn our everyday practices we can become uncomfortable and may feel threatened. However, change and


developlnent cannot occur if we do not take risks. Our attitudes will help to determine how we respond: wh~~her we take the outcomes of our risk-taking as learning opportunItIes for further growth and development, or, whether we take them as failures and return to ~ur original comfort zones. Teachers who are open to ~he .ris~s o.f learnI~g about their own practices and those of theIr InstItutIOns wI!1 experience continued growth and development throughout theIr teaching career. We can challenge our p~actices and everyday behaviours and motivate ourselves through actIOn research.

Conclusion

In this chapter we, have reviewed some of the key elements of action research. We have also discussed some critical issues that relate to action research and other types of research. Above all, it is important to remember why we are carrying out AR - it is to make an informed change based on our systematic enquiry. That change could be related to our own practices or the practices of the school and could potentially have a major or minor impact on the ways in which things are done. Sarason (1990) reminds us that schools should be acknowledged as existing for the development of ~oth teachers a~d students. When teachers are learning, so are theIr students. It IS

incumbent upon all of us who are teachers to continue to educate .and investigate ourselves and our workplaces and the effect of our actIOns on our learners.

Terms

Action Research (AR) - is an approach to collecting or interpreting data that involves a clear, repeated cycle of procedures (Bailey, 200 I p.490)

Collaborative research - usually pertaining to academics and school professionals who work together to investigate teac~i~g and learn~ng but it could also encompass any group of partICIpants workIng together to conduct research.


Criti~al enq.uiry - situations in which groups of teachers begin to questIO~ t?elr ~wn. and others' practices. and take action through ~ys.temlc InvestIgatIOn to qualify· the practices so as to provide InSIghts and alternatives where found necessary.

Ethic~1 considerations - In large-scale research projects, it is esse~~lal for the r~searcher to inform the research subjects or pa~IClpants and obtaIn their voluntary permission to participate in the proJect. In slnall scale action research projects where teachers normal ?uties are being carried out, albeit differently, students should be Informe? of the t.eacher's purpose. When it comes to publishing students work, theIr consent should be obtained.

Participatory action research - According to Kenunis and Wilkinson (l998! - PAR aims to help people to investigate reality in ?rder ~o ch~nge It and at the same time to change reality in order to InvestIgate It. PAR is viewed as a collaborative social process that is emancipatory, critical and recursive. PAR generally involves a spiral of self-reflective overlapping cycles of:

• Planning a change

• • •

Acting and observing the process and consequence of change

Reflecting on these processes and consequences, and then

Re-planning and so forth (p.21-24)

Practitioner research - an array of activities people carry out as they see~ know~ed~e or. understanding while pursuing or improving a SOCIal practIce III whIch they regularly engage (Pritchard, 2002, p.3).

Resear.ch question - .the key question( s), dilemmas, or problems that you wIll use to gUIde the research process and which will be investigated by the design of the AR.

Research tools - the instruments that the investigator will be used to gathe~ and:or an~lyse data on the research questions. These Inay be questIOnnaireS, VIdeo taped lessons, observation frameworks lesson . . , transcnptlOns, students' products such as their written work journal reflections, lesson feedback forms, etc. '


Teacher research - research conducted by classroom teachers (Bailey,

2001 b, p. 490)

References

Adelman, C. (1993). Kurt Lewin and the origins of action research. Educational Action Research, 1 (1), 7-24.

Adelman, N. E. & Walking-Eagle, K.P. (1997). Teachers, time and school reform. In A. Hargreaves (Ed.), Rethinking educational change with heart and mind (pp.92-110). USA: ASCD.

Allwright, D. & Bailey, K.M. (1991). Focus on the language classroom. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Anderson, G.L. & Herr, K. (1999). The new paradigm wars: Is there room for rigorous practitioner knowledge in schools and universities? Educational Researcher 28 (5), 12-21,40.

Bailey, K. M. (1998). Approaches to empirical research in instructional settings. In H. Byrnes (Ed.), Learning foreign and second languages: Perspectives in research and scholarship (pp.75-104). New York: Modem Language Association of America.

Bailey, K. M. (2001a). Twenty questions about action research. PASAA, 32, 1-18 (A Journal of Language Teaching and Learning in Thailand).

Bailey, K. M. (2001b). Action research, teacher research, and classroom research in language teaching. In M. Ce1ce-Murcia (Ed.), Teaching English as a second or foreign language (3

rd Ed),

(pp. 489-498). Boston: Heinle & Heinle

Bailey, K. M. Curtis, A. & Nunan, D. (2001). Pursuing professional development: The self as source. Boston: Heinle and Heinle.

Bums, A. (1999). Collaborative action research for English teachers. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.


Bums, A. (in pr~ss a). Action research. In E. Hikel (Ed.), Handbook of research m second language teaching and learning. Mahwah NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. '

Bum~, ~. (in. press b). Action research: Contributions and future dIrectIOns III ELT. In C. Davison & J. Cummins (Eds) Kl J. . I ., uwer nternatzona Handbook of English language education.

Amsterdam: Kluwer.

Chaudron, C. (1988). Second language classrooms: Research on teaching and learning. Cambridge: Cambridge UP.

Cochran-Smith, M. & L~le, S. (1990). Research on teaching and teacher research: The Issues that divide. Educational Researcher 19(2),2-11. '

Cochran~Smith, M. & Lytle, S. (1998). Teacher research: The questIO~s that persist. International Journal of Leadership in Educatzon, 1(1), 19-36.

Corey, S.. (1949). Action research, fundamental research and educatIOnal practices. Teachers College Record, 50, 509-514.

Freeman, D. (1996). Redefining the relationship between research and what teachers know. In K.M. Bailey & D. Nunan (eds) Voices .from the language classroom (pp.88-11S). Cambridg~~ Cambndge University Press. .

Freeman, D .. (1998). Doing teacher research. From inquiry to understandmg. Boston, MA: Heinle & Heinle Publishers.

Kember, D. & Kelly, M. (1993). Improving teaching throuah action res~arch. Australia: Higher Education Research and Dev~lopment SOCIety of Australasia Inc.

Ke~is, S .. ~ McTagga~ (Eds.) (1988). The action research plannel: ThIrd edItIon. AustralIa: Deakin University.

Kemmis, S. & Wilkinson, M. (1998). Participatory action research and the study of practice. In B. Atweh, S. Kemmis & P. Weeks


(Eds.), Action research in practice. Partnerships for social justice in education (pp. 1-36). London: Routledge.

Li, W.S., Yu, W. M, Lam, T.S., and Fok, P. K. (1999). The lack of action research: The case of Hong Kong. Educational Action Research, 7 (1), 33-49.

Long, M. H. (1983). Training the second language teacher as classroom researcher. In J. E. Alatis, H. H. Stem, P. Strevens (Eds.), Applied linguistics and the preparation of seco~d language teachers: Toward a rationale (pp. 281-297). Washmgton, DC: Georgetown University Press.

Lytle, S. L. & Cochran-Smith, M. (1992). Teacher research as a way of knowing. In 1. Hall, C. H. Campbell and EJ. Miech. (Eds.), Class acts. Teachers reflect on their own classroom practIce (pp. 30). Cambridge, MA: Harvard Educational Review.

Nichols, R. (1997). Action research in health care: The ~ollaborat~ve action research network health care group. EducatlOnal ActlOn Researchel; 5 (2), 185-192.

Nunan, D. (1994). The more things change, the more they stay the same: Why action research does not work. In D. Nunan, R. Be~ & V. Berry (Eds.), Bringing about change in languaf!e educat~on (pp.I-19). Proceedings of the Intenlational Language m EducatIOn Conference. Hong Kong: University of Hong Kong.

Pritchard, 1. A. (2002). Travelers and trolls: Practitioner research and institutional review boards. Educational Researchel; 31 (3), 3-13.

Rainey, 1. (2000). Action research and the English ~s a fore~gn language practitioner: Time to take stock. EducatlOnal ActlOn Research, 8( 1), 65-91.

Sarason, S. B. (1990). The predictable failure of educational reform. Can we change course before it's too late? US: Jossey-Bass.

Schwab, J. (1969). College curricula and student protest. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.


Somekh, B. & Thaler, M. (1997). Contradictions of management theory, organisational cultures and the self. Educational Action Research, 5 (1), 141-160. .

Stenhouse, L. (1971). The Humanities Curriculum Project: The rationale. TheOlY into Practice, X (3), 154-162.

Tinker Sachs~ G., Cheung, J. Pang, D. & Wong, M. (1998). Transformmg the Supervision of Hong Kong's English language Teachers. Asia Pacific Journal of Language in Education 1(2) 102-128. ' ,

Tinker Sachs, 0. & Kong, S. (1998). Reflection in EFL In-service Journal Writing: The Teachers, The Tutors and the Researchers. Asia Pacific Journal of Language in Education, 1 (1), 7 _ 32.

Tinker Sachs, G., Lau, L. P.M., Ng, H.T., Sam, M. F., Tam, S. K. & Leung, C.K .. (2000). Promoting primary EFL teacher leadership through readmg programme development. "In J. Hung, V. Berry, V. Crew & C. Davison (Eds.) Discourses and development in langua?e education (pp.185-20 1). International Language in EducatJOn Conference. The Chinese University of Hong Kong.

Tucker, 0. R. & Donato, R. (1995). Developing a second-language rese~rch component within a teacher-education prograIll. In J.E. AlatIs (Ed.), Linguistics and the education of language teachers: Ethnolinguistic,. psycholinguistic and SOciolinguistic aspects (pp. 453-470). Washmgton, D.C.: Georgetown University Press.

Zeichner, K. (1995). Beyond the divide of teacher research and academic research. Teachers and Teaching: Theory and Practice 1(2),153-172. '

'77'."

Group Work in Grammar Teaching Monica Wong

Introduction

Action research is about the systematic study of attempts to change and improve educational practice by groups of participants by means of their own practical actions and by means of their own reflection upon the effects of those actions. (Ebbutt, 1985, p. 156)

The opportunity for me to participate in a classroom-based action research project from late 1998 to 2000 has enabled me to innovate my teaching methods. This report thus provides a detailed account of how my action research was carried out and how it facilitated teaching and learning in my language classroom.

Context of Teaching

My school, which is a Chinese Medium of Instruction (CMI) school in K wai Chung, has a relatively lower banding than schools in the same district. Therefore, our students are of a lower proficiency than our counterparts. Being a teacher of English in the junior forms for several years, it is quite discouraging to find students being unable to learn English effectively. Yet, it is even more discouraging to find teachers using and allowing Cantonese in their language classroom, as I believe that using Cantonese as the medium of instruction will only make things worse. This has in fact created an adverse effect on students because they have become so used to learning English in

I

\ "

I


Cantonese that they refuse to try listening to English at all. Hence, it is always a hard job for me to convince my students to try learning

English in the target language.

Even though I manage to enhance students' confidence in learning English through English, their poor results in examinations have always been my major concern. As a matter of fact, among all the papers (General English, Composition, Listening, Oral and Dictation) that our students have to attempt in the examination, General English (G. E.) is always the worst of all. When trying to figure out the reasons behind this, I find that our students always make recurring mistakes in grammar and they forget the rules and format of the grammar items easily. Of course the major reason behind this phenomenon is that they never manage to internalize the language patterns because of their poor language foundation.

Yet, when I investigated this problem in more detail, I began to doubt whether the grammar exercises should playa role in our students' poor performance. In fact, students in our school have to do quite a lot of grammar exercises. Yet, most of them are decontextua1ized in nature and students can just complete them without understanding what they really mean. Even though there are occasionally some contextualized exercises, they are seldom designed according to the real life settings which our students experience. Worst still, they are always too difficult for students to carry out. As a result, a lot of time is needed to explain difficult words to students, which makes the lessons very teacher-centred. Consequently, students lose their

interest in doing those exercises.

Planning of my Action Research Project In view of the above situation, I decided to find a way to improve the effectiveness of my own teaching as well as students' learning. Hence, when I was invited to join the action research project, I knew that it was something that I had been longing for, as the procedures of doing action research, which involve a systematic change of one's professional practice, are meant to improve the quality of learning, and to enhance the rationality and justice of the educational system

(Kemmis & Carr, 1986).

Group Work in Grammar Teaching 89

Given the action research cycle as . ' action research that is pl' ~ spIral of four 'conditions' of (Kemmis and MCTaggart~~~~' actr~' observation and reflection project through d ff . ' p. 0 11), I started planmng my

ra mg an actIOn research pIa E h not taught students of form 1 (F 1) f; . n. -:en tough I had choose a F.l class for my t" or qUlte a long tIme, I intended to less opposition would be ;c 10

dn

bresearch project, as I believed that

. lace ecause they did t t h expenence of learning English th h h . no ye ave the roug t elr mother tongue.

Although it was obvious that m ar . .. teaching I had not d y .ea of mvestIgatIon was grammar , rna e up my mmd wh t t'

enhancing students" interest in learn in a ac 10ns I .would .take in own teaching of gramma H ,g gra~ar and lmprovmg my consulted articles for refe:~nc:.nce, before gettmg anything started, I

The Design of Grammar Tasks

Our traditional ways of grammar tea . . mainly on grammar rules instead of III C~11lg and leanung focused do a lot of mechanical drills and d eamng. !'fence, students had to planned to bring changes t econtextuahzed exercises. When I whether those decontextu~ I grdammar. teaching, the first concern was

(a Ize exerCIses should b b d d

1994) pointed out that drill d . .e a an one . Pica t h ' an practIce are stIll worth f b h eac ers and researchers' considerati b y 0 ot

whom the classroom is the sole c t o~' ut for those learners for efficient means is needed to on ~xt or language leanling, a more they are trying to learn. access t le grammar rules of the language

However, in the same article Pica I classrooms, drills and practice 'mi ht ; so asserted .that in many WIth distinctively different actI'vI'tI·ges . ell}?e found m conjunctIon

d I. mvo vmg student

an c assroom dIscussion. The idea of' grou~ work supported by Ellis (1998) H dOl.ng group tasks IS also . e stated that If co· .. tasks are performed i nSCIOusnesS-ratsmg medium for solving ~h~o;:o~~~s t~~:arget language is used as the communicative tasks and I y pose, the tasks double as

earners can talk ab t other topic as well. ou ,grammar and any

j I

I


Ideas of different writers have shown the merits of different grammar teaching instruction. With reference to this point, it is believed that the effectiveness. of grammar instruction in fact depends largely on the selection and sequencing of grammar rules and a careful assessment of learner readiness (Pica, 1994). If the production practice is directed at a structure that learners are not yet ready to acquire, it is likely to fail (Pienemann, 1984 as cited in Ellis, 1998). Hence, it would be premature to abandon approaches to teaching grammar that emphasize production practice, and the task facing teachers is to decide when production practice can assist their students and when it is not likely to succeed (Ellis, 1998). As Harmer (1997) wrote, "There is no one way to teach grammar. How we do it depends on the specific grammar item(s) we are interested in, our own preferences, and the type and level of the students in front of us"

(p.39).

After reading some literature on grammar teaching, I decided to design grammar tasks on selected items for students to carry out. Instead of modifying the contextualized exercises in the textbook, I would design new tasks to cope with students' interests and level of abilities. These grammar tasks, which aimed at consolidating students' understanding of grammar, would serve as a supplement to the textbook exercises which students had to complete as required.

The Incorporation of Cooperative Learning

The question of a grammar instruction method had been settled. Yet, a new concern had arisen about how the grammar tasks should be carried out. Reviewing the literature, the idea of group task was mentioned by both Pica (1994) and Ellis (1998). To further investigate the concept of group work, other sources from the literature were consulted and cooperative learning (CL) was selected as a complement to grammar tasks in my action research project.

The ideas of cooperative learning seemed to be best for my students, who were very often labeled as academic low-achievers. CL encourages each group member to play a role and be accountable for contributing his or her share of the work in order for the group to


achieve its mutual goals (Gabbrielli, 1997). It is therefore an effective m~ans i~ promoting intrinsic motivation and task achievement, heIghtem~g self-~steem, creating caring and altruistic relationships, and lowenng anXIety and prejudice (Oxford, 1997).

The merits of cooperative learning seemed to be massive. Nevertheless, its su~cess relies greatly on how cooperative groups are fon:ned and how mte~ersonal skills are developed. Among the vanous w~ys of formmg cooperative groups, structured forms of teacher-assIgned heterogeneous grouping seemed to be the best for my students, as it enhances relations among classmates, promotes learner-to-Iearner tutoring, increases tolerance, decreases prejudice, and promotes cross-cultural understanding (Kagan, 1985 as cited in Oxford, 1997).

~ccording to ~oy (.19?5), it is quite obvious that developing ~nterp~rsonal skIlls wIthm cooperative groups is no easy task, as mvo~v.mg everyone~ communicating and listening, giving and receIvmg help, gettmg to know others, and developing trust are important skills tl~at students have to learn. Yet, they will not develop group-process skills unless they are taught directly and have an opportunity to practice those skills within a cooperative group setting. Furt.hermore: students must spend time reflecting over their use of partIcular skIlls a~er they have completed activities during which the use of these skIlls was expected. All these were difficult to accompli.sh even for mature students. Hence, I doubted whether my students In F.1, who were said to be childish and a bit naughty could grasp those skills in doing group tasks. '

In spite of the~e Iimit~tions, I still believed that cooperative learning was worth try~ng, as It has an extra merit - reducing the level of teacher-talk. Smce cooperative learning enables learners to work at the group's pace instead of the teacher's, they are encouraged to become autonomous and less teacher-dependent. In this way, teachers can st~p back and reflect on how things are going, spend time on r~medlal work and assist weaker students as group work allows more tIme for them to gain valuable insights into how students are learning (Atkinson, 1993).


After getting infonnation from the literature, I decided event~ally to incorporate group work in grammar ~earning, thro~gh whIch the whole class would be divided into vanous groups wIth students of mixed abilities. In this case, it was expected that students would be able to help one another through peer-tutoring; and through working collaboratively, the weaker ones would not have to shoulder m~re responsibility for their poor perfonnance. This would therefore .ralse their incentives in participating. If students could be more actIvely involved in the learning process, the amount of teacher-talk can consequently be reduced and the lesson will become more student-centred as well.

Methods Used to Investigate Self

The final step which I had to plan before starting my action research project was to define the means to investigate the ef~ectiveness. of my project. Since our school curriculum is always veI?' tIght, I declde~ to design only one task for every selected grammar Item. T~e follow~ng means were planned to be used for evaluation: I) keepmg teachmg journals after doing every gramn1ar task; 2) videotaping selected grammar lessons; 3) holding evaluative meetings with the whole class at regular intervals; as well as 4) observing students' perfonnance shown in doing the tasks, quizzes and exams.

Actions Done

Before the implementation of gramlnar tasks, cooperative groups needed to be assigned. Since students in EI had to do a screening test on English, Chinese and Mathematics before they started school, subject teachers were clear about the levels of their learning abilities. In this way, heterogeneous grouping could be done at an early stage in accordance with their language proficiency (Oxford, 1997). At the beginning of September, I had already told studen~s thal cooperative learning would be carried out and cooperatIve groups w~re

announced as well. A double period was spent to let students practice how to get into their groups in an efficient and disciplined manner. In


order to enhance their sense of belonging to their cooperative groups, they w~re allowed to think of a group name.,that they liked. Of course, much tIme was spent on telling students how to behave in doing group work and general rules were fonned.

Apart from ~ssigning cooperative groups, a questionnaire (Appendix A) was des~gned to collect infonnation on students' understanding and perceptIOns of grammar. As it was expected that the data collected could be used as an important record for tracking students' changes in their attitude towards grammar learning before and after the implementation of the action research project, a double period was used for guiding students to complete the questionnaire in early September before the start of any formal lessons. The same questionnaire was to be done after the implementation of the action research project.

After the completion of the pre-AR questionnaire, data were sent to the research assistant and the results were analyzed.

From the descriptive statistics, it was found that the majority of our students had very limited understanding of most of the items. Although it appeared that they were more familiar with tense and prepositions, they failed to apply those two itelns properly when they were asked to write a sentence with the items required in Part 2. In other words, their understanding of grammar was not only limited but superficial in reality. '

On the other hand, when data from Section B were analyzed to track students' perceptions of grammar, a rather peculiar phenomenon was found. More than half of the students agreed or strongly agreed (a total nu~be: of 64.3% and 67.7%, respectively) that learning grammar IS Important and useful, but almost the same number of students \61 :3 %» ~isagreed or strongly disagreed that learning grammar IS mterestmg. Also, about half of the students (45.2%) recalled from their experience of learning grammar in their primary school that they made quite a lot of mistakes in doing grammar exercises in spite of finding themselves understanding what the teacher had taught in class. One of the reasons behind this might be explained through the findings, as about half of the students revealed


that they could not remember the use of the grammar items after they had learnt them, nor could they understand why mistakes were made even after listening to their teacher's explanation (51.60/0 and 45.2% respectively). All these figures were very useful in evaluating the effectiveness of my action research project when the same questionnaire was done again after the completion of my project at the end of the term.

Planning of the First Grammar Task

The first grammar task that I did with students on 14 October 1999 was on present simple tense with a focus on familiarizing students with the adverbs of frequency involved in showing habits and routines. At the beginning of the activity, I gave every group two identical task sheets where the structures "How often do you ... ?" and "I always / often / sometimes / never..." were drilled. To make the task more interactive and suitable in a cooperative setting, I gave each group an envelope which contained the task cards, that is, the names of activities like "go shopping", "brush teeth", "watch television", and so forth Then students were asked to take turns picking the cards out of the envelope and using the structure "How often do you ... ?" to ask their classmates the frequency with which they performed the activity. In tum, classmates would have to make use of the structures on the task sheet to give their answers. In order to enable everyone to get used to the structure and to make the task more motivatin~, students were not allowed to pick another task card unless all theIr group mates could answer the questions correctly. The group which picked the most task cards would be considered the winner.

Observations and Reflections

The following excerpt fro'm my teaching journal on the first grammar task which was written on the same day when the task was done, sho~ed how the class reacted to cooperative learning, and my findings about my first experimental teaching.

The activity was done satisfactorily and students enjoyed it very much. I deliberately made the tasks more challenging


by taking away the task sheets from students so that they could not look at the task sheet tc!' make questions and answers. I was happy to see that majority of them were able to remember how to make use of the Present Simple Tense to ask questions and make answers about others' habits. By the end of the task, I picked a task card from everyi group randomly and tested whether students had really internalized the pattern that they had learnt. As a result, all groups were able to make peJject questions and answers.

l!evertheless, there were still flaws in the activity. Two boys In the san~e group were ve,y poor in discipline and they c~used qUlfe a lot of trouble for their group. Even though I tned to let them reflect on their own peiformance in the task they did not realize that they had done anything wrong.' Hence, I had to repeat the rules of doing group work and I hoped that they would behave better next time.

Planning of the Second Grammar Task

The. second grammar task was done on 3 November on present contmuous tense. Even though a task was given by the project team research~r, I.did not a~opt it because it was not designed according to s~uden~s dally ~xpenence. In view of this, the short writing task gIven m the cumculum, which required students to write about what they saw while looking out of the window at the moment was adopted as the second group task. It was hoped that the amo~nt of ~each~~-ta1k could be reduced through welcoming students' own ideas 1ll wntmg and the lesson would become more student-centred as well.

Instead of "instructing" students on what to write I made use of a wall picture which showed different scenes of a p~rk. Then I asked each group to imagine that the park was next to their home and asked ~hem to ~elect the scene that they all liked and write something about It. In thIS way, although the writing task was still controlled in a certain sense, I had at least given students a free choice to write with the help of a visual aid.

1 i



An excerpt from my teaching journal has been included to show the classroom situation when the second grammar task was done:

I was a bit worried at first because I was not sure whether students could do the task, as they were so used to being 'instructed' on what to write before. Yet, I was really surprised to see students being so interested in the pictures and they were highly motivated to make sentences on their own. I was glad to see that students began to seek help from one another about the way to express themselves and they only asked for my advice when they failed to have a consensus. The only thing that I needed to do was to write the most common vocabulary· items on the blackboard after being consulted by students. In this way, my role as an instructor had gradually shifted to become a facilitator of students' learning.

In fact, students were required to write only about 20 words. Yet, they were so interested in writing that they were not willing to stop. As a result, they almost wrote everything that they could see from the wall chart and they all completed their task within a velY short while.

Planning of the Third Grammar Task

The third grammar task on past simple tense was done on 26 November 1999. It was in fact the first task that was being videotaped. Similar to the previous task, I had not adopted the task given by the research assistant, as it was a bit too difficult for my students and it also contained the interrogative fom1 which I had not yet covered. As a result, I tried to find other materials from my own resources and managed to find a story-writing activity for my students. The original activity consisted of pictures with sentence slots provided and students would have to change the verbs on the slots to the past simple tense before writing the story out. To make the task more interesting and suitable for students to work as a group, I cut off the


pictures, put them in an envelope and asked my students to rearrange the order before writing the story.


The ta~k was c~nsidered the most successful task of all. Students were hIghly motI~ated and well-behaved and the time control for the ~ask was most satisfactory. A detailed account of what had ha ened IS as follows: pp

M~ students were ve,y excited to see somebody visiting them WIth a camera. They were too excited and almost failed to ~ontrol themselves .... Luckily, discipline resumed as normal I~ a. short while and students were quite attentive in lzstenmg to my instructions in doing the jirst part of the task, that was, to rearrange the pictures. They managed to understand what I meant and they seemed to be looking forward to doing the task.

I was sU1prised to see that they were efficient in settling down. ~ince I asked students to put up their hands when they had jinzshed r~a.rranging the pictures, they all thought that it w~s a competitzon and they were serious in arranging the pictures .... 1 was happy to see that most students were on-task most of the time. Although some of the group failed to chan?e some of the given verbs into the past simple tense, they enjoyed the task and were serious with their work.

When time was up, I was glad to see that every group had completed . their story. . .. Then I gave each group representatIve a task sheet of another group and asked him / her to write down the story on the board under the group name of the task sheet ... . Most students remained silent and attentive as they had to make sure that students from other groups would not make any mistakes in copying their work. Of ~ourse, there were some who felt a bit bored waiting for their classmates to write the answers on the board. But their performance in general was very satisfactory.

J

I I


After checking the answers with all the groups, I cleaned the board and wrote down all the verbs that had appeared and asked my students to give me the simple past tense of them again. I was impressed to see that all of my students were able to give me the past tense of the verbs without making any mistakes.

Planning of the Fourth Grammar Task

With the commencement of the mid-tenn examination and Christmas holiday, the fourth grammar task was done on 20 February 2000 -three days after the end of the examination period. Similar to the second task, the fourth task, which required students to write about what they had done during the previous weekend, was in fact a short writing activity required in the curriculum. In fact, it should have been done before the mid-term examination. Nevertheless, since the curriculum was so tight, most teachers failed to complete that task and our panel chair allowed us to complete it after the examination as a revision task.

In view of the success of the previous short writing task in reducing the amount of teacher-talk, I decided to lnake the task really student-oriented this time. Instead of giving them a wall-picture to follow as I did the previous time, I told them to write something authentic about their daily life. In order to make the task suitable to carry out in a group setting, I let students write on their own with the help of peer-tutoring. After everyone had written what they had done the previous weekend, they would have to share their work with their peers and each group would have to select the best work among themselves, modify it and report it to the whole class.


Since discipline in class had become worse after the long holiday and examination period, I had to start by reinforcing the rules involved. Luckily, students were quite interested in doing the t~sk, as it was something related to their daily lives. The following excerpts show how the fourth task was done:


... Students were a bit annoyed when I asked them to complete the short-writing task in tbeir worksheet .... When I told them that they were allo~ed to write something authentic, ~10st of them told me that they had no idea of what to WYlte and they started chatting and making noise. Then I reminded them of how they should behave in groups and asked some of them what they had done the previous weekend. After they had told me what they really had done, I encouraged them to write it down. I was surprised to find students querying whether they could really write those things. When I confirmed that those were the things that I want~d, all. of them began to show me a smiling face and they Immediately started working on the task.

Unlike the previous short writing task, I refused to tell students how to express themselves directly and tried to stin~~late t~eir power of expressions by encouraging them to reVISIt theIr existing knowledge. I was happy to see that students of higher abilities were willing to help the weaker ones. It was even more encouraging to find some groups choosing to modify and report the work of weaker students, as they all agreed that those work contained more interesting ideas than theirs. Throughout the two periods, J had further cut down the amount of teacher-talk and had helped students to learn from one another more effectively.

Planning of the Fifth Grammar Task

The fifth gra~ar task on simple future tense was done two days after the prevIOUS one was done, that is on 22 February 2000, and it would be the second task being videotaped. The task, which was bas.ed on the. stofY, of Cinderella and designed by the research aSSIstant, re~Ulred ~Ifferent groups to make use of the simple future ~ense. to. wnte a dlalo~ue of different characters. It was a highly ImagmatIve task and mIght sound a bit challenging to my students. However, I still thought that the task could be done because students ,:ere .supposed to be familiar with the story. Nevertheless, the class SItuatIOn had changed during these days as some of the students in


class misbehaved seriously in school and conduct marks were deducted. Hence, these students became trouble-makers in all lessons throughout these days because they knew that they were beyond any hope of getting promoted to F.2. Even their class teacher suggested that I do not let them continue participating in group work. As a matter of fact, I did not want to ignore any students from my class, as I believed that cooperative learning was a valuable chance for them to learn from one another and everybody should have the right to benefit from it. Hence, I was determined to disperse these students into different groups instead of disallowing them to participate.


Detailed observations were made by the project team researcher. As far as the task itself was concerned, some students had problems with the vocabulary and the pictures in the vocabulary worksheet seemed insufficient for students to make sentences.

With reference to students' perforn1ances, it was a pity to say that the whole task was a mess and students were noisy throughout. Some of them, especially the "trouble-makers" deliberately talked loudly in the discussion. They were not paying attention and they failed to work cooperatively with their new group lnates. Facing a tough situation, I failed to control the class despite scolding them severely several times. Worse still, since much time was spent on restoring order, the time was not sufficient for carrying out the task.

Planning of the Sixth Grammar Task

The sixth grammar task was arranged on 29 March 2000. Throughout this period, my relation with the students was not satisfactory. They continued to misbehave themselves and therefore I had deliberately avoided doing any group work with theln. Nevertheless, when adjectives were taught, I found it quite ineffective to teach by giving vocabulary. Also, since the exercises on the worksheet only required students to put the appropriate adjectives in the blanks provided, it was quite meaningless as students did not know the meaning of the adjectives at all and they failed to complete any of the exercises given.


In view of this, I was determined to do another grailllnar task with them.

In .ord~r to en~ble students to really make use of the different types of adjectIves - slz.e, shape: col~urs, qualities, and so forth that they had l~arnt, a wall-pIcture WIth dIfferent aliens on it was given as a visual ald. Students were then asked to pick one of the aliens they liked and make use of the different kinds of adjectives to describe it.


In ~rder to pave the way for the re-start of group work with students I delIberately made this task individual work and told students that' it was their only chance to convince me that they were able to behave themselves. If they. managed to do so, I would consider doing another group work task WIth them later on. Under this circumstance students were very ~areful i~ controlling themselves. They underst~od very clearl!, that If they mIsbehaved again, that would be their final chance of dOl~g any ~ore group work. As a matter of fact, some students did appreCIate dOl~g group work, as they found themselves being able to ~earn fr?m theIr peers. The performance of students in doing this task IS descnbed below:

When the wall picture with aliens was shov.m, students roared with laughter because of the strange and funny appearance of the aliens. Yet, they tried hard to control themselves and listen to what they were expected to do.

Since the application of adjectives required students to take a closer look at the aliens, I allowed time for them to come out of their seats and look at the pictures closely. I was quite happy to see that they did not make use of the chance to make noise or to chat with their friends. All of them were well-behaved and even the most 'unmotivated' student in class was eager to come out and write down what he had found. He even showed great enthusiasm in asking me how to express himself and to report what he had done when he had finished his work.


Planning of the Last Grammar Task

The final task was done on 5 May 2000 w~en I?r. Anne .Burns paid her visit to our school. Since time was tIght ill prepanng for the examination, I had stopped designing any tasks. fo~ group work. Hence, the last task was just a revision task on adJe~tIV~s. Although students had done an individual grammar task on adjectives about a month ago, I believed that some of them ~ight have already forgotten about everything after the long Easter hohday.

In order to motivate students in doing the task, I gave every group a photo of an animal and distributed a task sheet for every group. Th~n, I asked students to follow the instructions on the task sheet. to wnte down their descriptions of the animals. On the task sheet, I Included observable items like ears, eyes, face, hair, body ~nd. legs so that students had to make use of the different types of a~JectIves that the~ had learnt to complete them. In order to stll~ulate stud~~ts imagination, I deliberately included an unobserv.able Item on quahtIes, through which students had to make use of theu common sense and imagination to complete it.


The last teaching journal was written shortly after the ta~k w~s done. The following excerpt is used to describe the classroom SItuatIOn:

I was glad to see students being interested in the photos. They tried hard to control themselves and they had not argued about the photo they would like to have. Throughout the process of group work, students were quit~ serious ~nd they discussed with their friends from tzme to . tune concerning what to put down. They only consulted my .zdeas at times when they did not know how to spell a partzcular adjective.

Difficulties were encountered when st~dents came to the point to describe the qualities of the anzmals, as they could not find the answers directly from the p~otos. In 'O~der to reduce my teacher-talk, I did not provzde them wzth the


adjectives right away and I intended to give them the adjectives only after they had reacljed a common idea on the qualities of the animals. I was glad to see that students were able to remember those adjectives even after the lesson had ended.

General Findings of the Grammar Tasks

Throughout the implementation of my action research project, I have focused on two particular areas - the impact on effective learning on the part of students and the impact on reducing my own teacher-talk. In reviewing my action research project in greater detail, I have found a connection between the reduction of teacher-talk and students' performance. First of all, I discovered that the more I talked in class, the less attention I usually gained from my students. As a matter of fact, the less I talked while students were doing group tasks, the more students were participating and the more they were aware of what they were actually learning. On the other hand, while I had cut down the amount of teacher-talk, I could have spent more time in observing students' performance and could have Inanaged to pay more attention to their needs and difficulties, especially those who used to be quiet and weak in class.

In fact, the weaker students in my class were able to make greater progress than the stronger ones throughout the year. When students' performance in quizzes and examinations were tracked, a dramatic improvement in the number of students who passed in quizzes was recorded and progress was also shown in the highest mark which students managed to score each time (Table A). On the other hand, even though students' performance in doing the General English paper in the examinations seemed to be far from significant in showing the effectiveness of my action research project, a total number of 16 students, which included the majority of the weakest in class, were able to show an improvement in their own score(Table B).


Table A Quiz Performance of Students (1999-2000)

Quiz Passing Rate Remarks

1st 9.7% Highest mark (62.5)

2nd 33.3% Highest mark (70)

3rd 400/0 Highest mark (72)

4th 76.7% Highest mark (85)

5th 600/0 Highest mark (78)

6th 82.1 0/0 Highest mark (82)

Table B Examination (paper on General English) Performance

0 f Students (1999-2000)

Exam(GE.) Passing Rate Remarks

Mid-Tenn 36.7% Highest Inark (71 )

Final 34.5% Highest mark (77)

In order to track students' change~ in their ~nderstanding ~nd . ammar after the ImplementatIOn of my actI~n

percepthlOns ?f tgr the questionnaire which students had done III researc proJec, d' . J 2000 Data Se tember 1999 was done for the secon tIme III ~ne . . .

P t to the project team researcher for analysIs .11nmedlately

:e~~ ~~~pletion of the questionnaire. A detailed compa~Ison betw~en t~e results of the two questionnaires is shown as follows In Table C.

Table C Students' Understanding of Grammar before and after

the Implementation of the Project

ever heard of the Round 1 Round 2 1. Have you following? 'I yes no yes no

22 9 25 4

a. tense (71%) (29%) (86.20/0) (13.8%)

3 28 5 24

b. countable and uncountable nouns (9.7%) (90.3%) (17.2%) (82.8%)

11 20 20 9

c. adjectives (35.5%) (64.5%) (69.0%) (31.0%)


d. adverbs 6 25 22 7 (19.4%) (80.6%) (75.9%) (24.1%)

e. prepositions 18 13 IS 14 (58.1%) (41.9%) (51.7%) (48.3%)

f. infinitives II 20 9 20 (35.5%) (64.5%) (3\.0%) (69.0%)

6 25 10 19 g. pronouns

(19.4%) (80.6%) (34.5%) (65.5%)

h. articles 5 26 I 28 (16.1%) (83.9%) (3.4%) (96.6%)

2. Do you know how to use the Round 1 Round 2 following? If "yes", please make

yes no yes a sentence that includes the item. no

a. tense 6 25 11 18 (19.4%) (80.6%) (37.9%) (62.1%)

b. countable and uncountable nouns 1 30 1 28 (3.2%) (96.8%) (3.4%) (96.6%)

c. adjectives I 30 4 25 (3.2%) (96.8%) (13.8%) (86.2%)

d. adverbs 0 31 3 26 (0%) (100%) (10.3%) (89.7%)

e. prepositions 2 29 5 24 (6.5%) (93.5%) (17.2%) (82.8%)

f. infinitives 0 31 0 29 (0%) (100%) (0%) (100%)

0 31 3 26 g. pronouns

(%) (100%) (10.3%) (89.7%)

h. articles 0 31 0 29 (0%) (100%) (0%) (100%)

When comparing students' understanding of grammar before and after the implementation of my action research project, it was seen that some of them had become more familiar with items like tense (from 71 % to 86.2%), nouns (from 9.7% to 17.20/0), adjectives (from 35.50/0 to 69%), adverbs (from 19.4% to 75.9%) and pronouns (from 19.4% to 34.5%). These were also the items that a few students were able to apply in making sentences. Nevertheless, a negative result was found in students' understanding on prepositions and articles (from 58.1% to 51.7% and from 16.1% to 3.40/0, respectively). Even though the number of students who managed to apply the use of prepositions in making sentences had slightly increased, none of the students was

I I

\ i

\ I I


able to apply the use of articles in making a sentence. This result aroused my concern because those two items were taught for a very limited time due to our tight syllabus.

On the other hand, when students' perceptions of grammar were tracked (Table D), it was found that their attitudes towards grammar learning had become more positive than before (the number of students who agreed and strongly agreed that learning grammar is important and useful had increased from 61.3%) to 86.2%) and from 67.70/0 to 89.7%), respectively). One of the most encouraging findings was that majority of the students (from 9.7% to 58.60/0) had changed their views to agree or strongly agree that learning grammar is

interesting.

Nevertheless, disappointing results were found in the increased number of students who revealed that they would make repeated mistakes in grammar (from 22.60/0 to 58.60/0) as well as the fact that they would make quite a lot of mistakes in doing granunar exercises in spite of finding themselves understanding what the teacher had taught in class (from 45.2%) to 58.6%»). Yet, the majority of them (82.7%) revealed that they were able to understand why mistakes were made after listening to their teacher's explanation.

Table D Students' Experience/ Perceptions in Learning Grammar . before and after the Implementation of the Project

Rank your response to the following statements by circling the

number. 5 = "strongly agree" 4 = "agree" 3 = "neither agree or disagree" 2 = "disagree" 1 = "strongly disagree;'


~

~ '$. ';J. OOQQ

.S

I I I


Problems Observed in My Action Research Project

Even though the results of my actio~ re~earch proj~ct seemed. to be quite encouraging, there were. hardshIps mvolved. FIrst of all, It was difficult to find suitable matenals for students to carry out group tasks. Since the level of my students was far from standard, some tasks, which were actually very interesting and useful, needed. to be modified, shortened, or even abandoned in order to cope ~lth the standard of my students. Under such circumstances, much tIme was

lost.

Secondly, our curriculum was so tight that I failed to in~orporate a task for every selected grammar iteln. There were even ~Imes when things were well-prepared and yet could not be. earned out on scheduled due to the lack of time. Also, I managed to conduct only one evaluative meeting with the whole class and could only ask a .few students about their opinions of the group tasks most of the tIme. Worse still, as I discovered that my class wa.s the poor~st among al.l, I started to question whether I had been lmplementmg my actIOn research project at the expense of other areas of teach~ng. ~enc~, I deliberatel y drew my attention back to other areas hke dictatI?n, comprehension, and so on. As a result, the time allocated for domg the action research was shortened. .

The biggest problem that I encountered was discipline. As shown from some of the tasks, managing the class had become somewhat difficult, as most students just made use of group tasks for fun. I had revealed the situation to their class mistress and was told that those students were trouble-makers in all subjects and even their parents failed to offer any help. In view of this, I tried to disper~e the most talkative students into other groups as far as I could. Yet, It was very difficult for me to arrange any drastic change in group setting, as the groups were initially formed according to students' learning abilities. As a result, the situation remained more or less the same.

Last but not least, I failed to make my students interact in English. Since our students were used to being weak in English, I had been quite satisfied with their ability to listen and had not urg~d them t? speak in English as well. This choice might actually hmder theIr


progress in speaking because they might think that they were allowed to speak in Cantonese in class.

Conclusion

Although I have experienced many setbacks in my action research project, I still believe that doing action research is beneficial to both teachers and students. It not only provides a chance for teachers to stand back and reflect on their own teaching, it is also an effective means for teachers to face the weaknesses of their own teaching and to work out possible ways to improve them. An oral survey on students' attitudes on doing group tasks was carried out after the completion of the last grammar task (Table E). Although it may seem that the number of students who found learning through grammar tasks more effective was far from significant, it in fact included the opinions of all the "weakest" and "the most unmotivated" students in class. On the other hand, most students who did not think that they learnt more effectively through doing grammar tasks were the smartest and the most hardworking.

Table E An Oral Survey on Students' Attitudes on Doing Group Tasks

Total Number of Students: 30 Yes No

1. Are you happy with doing grammar 22 8 tasks? (73.33%) (26.67%)

2. Do you prefer learning through 27 3 grammar tasks? (90.00%) (10.00%)

3. Do you find learning through 16 14 graill1nar tasks more effective? (53.33%) (46.67%)

Through this survey, I believe that that even the worst students can be motivated to learn grammar if it is taught in a way that copes with their interests and levels of ability. In fact, since I have been doing action research, I am convinced of the merits of getting students'


active participation in group work. I have also changed my belief that students would learn more when teachers spend more effort in their "instruction". Instead, I will try to put more attention in the time I talk and will have a more welcoming attitude towards students' divergent and open-ended responses.

In a nutshell, to me, the success of action research lies not only in the performance of students, but more in the attitude of the teachers themselves. In fact, teachers who engage in action research are no different from others. They are just more eager to increase their own professional expertise (Nixon, 1981) and are more open-minded to make changes to their ways of thinking and acting or even to break the chains of outmoded ideas. On the other hand, we should be given the right to revise the curriculum from time to time, as students are different every year and the kinds of things that were suitable in the past might not be appropriate in the future. It is only when teachers have true autonomy on deciding what to teach then Illore students will truly benefit.

References

Atkinson, D. (1993). Teaching Monolingual classes. London: Longman.

Ebbutt, D. (1985). Educational action research: Some general concerns and specific quibbles. In R.G. Burgess (Ed.), Issues in educational research: Qualitative methods (pp.152-174). London: Falmer Press.

Ellis, R. (1998). Teaching and research: Options in grammar teaching. TESOL Quarterly, 32 (1),39-60.

Gabbrielli, R.P. (1997). Cooperative learning: Successful groupwork in the EFL classroom. Authentically English, 1, 7-9.

Harmer, J. (1997). Teaching grammar. English Teaching Prof.essional,

1,38-39.


Kagan, ~. (1985). Co-op co-op: A flexible cooperative learning technIque. In R. Slavin, S. Sharan, S. Kagan, R. Hertz-Lazarowitz, C. Webb, & R. Schmuck (Eds.) Learning to cooperate, cooperating to learn (pp.67-96). New York: Plenum.

Kemmis, S. & Carr, W. (1986). Becoming critical: Education, knowledge and action research. London: Falmer Press.

Kemmis, ~. & McTaggart, R. (1982). The action research planner. AustralIa: Deakin University.

McPherson, P. (1997). Action research: Exploring learner diversity. Prospect, 12 (I), 50-62.

Nixon, J. (1981). A teacher's guide to action research: Evaluation enquiry and development in the classroom. London: Pitman Press.'

Oxford, .R. L., ~1997). Cooperative learning, collaborative learning, and mteractIOn: Three Communicative strands in the language classroom. The Modern Language Journal, 81(4),443-456.

Pica, T. (I 994). Questions from the language classroom: Research perspectives. TESOL Quarterly, 28 (1), 49-79.

Pienemann, .M. (1984). Psychological constraints on the teachability of languages. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 6 186-214. '

Roy, P. (1995) Cultivating cooperative group process skills within the ~anguage arts classroom. In Stahl, RJ. (Ed.). Cooperative learning In language ~rts: A handbook for teachers (pp.18-48). Menlo Park, CA.: InnovatIve Learning Publications.

J I


Appendix A

Questionnaire on the Learning of Grammar This questionnaire serves to track your genuine response to grammar learning throughout the academic year 199~-2000 .. Ple~se answer all the questions as instructed. Your cooperation is hIghly apprecIated.

Date: Name:

Group:

A. Understanding of Grammar ., Show your response to the following by cIrclmg yes / no. 1. Have you ever heard of the following?

a. b. c. d. e. f. g. h.

tense countable and uncountable nouns

adjectives adverbs prepositions infinitives pronouns articles

yes / no yes / no yes / no yes / no yes / no yes / no yes / no yes / no

2. Do you know how to use the following? If "yes" , please make a sentence

that includes the item. a. tense

yes / no

b. countable and uncountable nouns yes / no

c. adjectives yes / no

d adverbs yes / no

e. prepositions yes / no

f. infinitives yes / no

g. pronouns yes / no

h. articles yes / no


B. Experience / Perceptions in Learning Grammar Rank your response to the following statements by circling the number: 5 = "strongly agree" " 4 = "agree" 3 = "neither agree nor disagree" 2 = "disagree" I = "strongly disagree"

1. Learning grammar is important.

2. Grammar IS the most difficult part m English.

3. Learning grammar is interesting.

4. Learning grammar is very useful. .

5. It is easier to understand grammar if it is associated with Chinese.

6. I always pay attention in class.

7. I keep a notebook for learning grammar.

8. I will seek help from my teacher if I don't understand.

9. I will seek help from my classmates if I don't understand.

10. I am aware of the grammatical mistakes in my compositions.

11. I am aware of the mistakes made by my classmates.

12. I can finish a grammar exercise quickly.

13. I will do my own work though I know that I will make mistakes.

14. I make a lot of mistakes though I understand my teacher's explanation.

15. I know why I made mistakes after listening to teacher's explanation.

16. I will not make repeated mistakes.

17. I can remember the use of grammar items after I have learnt them.

18. I can apply new grammar items in my compositions.

- End of questionnaire -

5 4 3 2

5 4 3 2

5 4 3 2

5 4 3 2

5 4 3 2

5 4 3 2

5 4 3 2

5 4 3 2

5 4 3 2

5 4 3 2

5 4 3 2

5 4 3 2

5 4 3 2

5 4 3 2

5 4 3 2

5 4 3 2

5 4 3 2

5 4 3 2

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

~: I ,,~,

Adopting Process Writing Pheon Ng

Introduction

In recent years, reflective teaching has become a prominent part in promoting the effectiveness of teaching. There could never be a best way of teaching but making changes may be a possible means to success. No teacher will deny the importance of evaluating our teaching methodology from time to time and seeking for better ways to improve our teaching. For those who have been teaching for a couple of years, they may also see the need to refresh their teaching methodologies in order to cope with the pace of an ever-changing world and meet the needs of our students and society. Action research may be a vehicle for refreshing teaching methodologies and promoting effectiveness in teaching.

Problem Identification

To maximise the effectiveness of teaching English, the teachers in our school adopted the thematic approach in our English lessons. We believe that the thematic approach can consolidate students' learning when certain vocabulary items are recalled within the 2 or 3 cycles. The tasks or activities planned are about the same theme. Students were found to be more confident in using the vocabulary items. However, after being taught the relevant vocabulary items, we found that students still made several mistakes and they were unable to give creative ideas.


We adopted the thematic approach in teaching English because we find that our students are weak in vocabulary items. Thus, we designed writing exercises based on the theme taught. Besides, students do not have a good mastery of English. We then tried to help them by giving guided questions, sometimes with pictures. The result was not satisfactory. Students wrote similar contents and creative ideas were seldom found.

Problem Analysis

Symptoms

Before students start to write a composition, the teacher will give them some preparation exercises to practise using the relevant sentence structures or the vocabulary items learnt. The teacher will brainstorm the vocabulary and the ideas with the students. Students can usually use the vocabulary learnt under that certain theme but they are unable to elaborate upon their ideas. They stop abruptly when writing stories. This phenomenon is obvious when they are asked to describe things or people. They usually write about homework when explaining why they are busy or going on a picnic under the topic of" An Unforgettable Day". They do not know how to create ac1imax for their stories. Thus, the teacher will introduce more vocabulary items or special ideas to make the story more interesting. Then students spend about forty minutes writing the composition, which they are supposed to finish at school. Students use the vocabulary items learnt and the ideas used in the textbook. Some students use the ideas given by the teacher in the preparation lesson. However, it appears that they are reluctant to give new ideas.

Possible Causes

The insufficient exposure to an English environment may be the major cause of the students' problems. Students do not have enough vocabulary items to express what they want to write as they seldom read English stories. Besides, their limited life experience will also hinder their creativity in writing. Their life experience may not be rich enough for them to perceive interesting ideas. Their

Adopting Process Writing 117

organisational ability is also weak. This weakness is clearly shown when students are asked to tell a story. or explain something orally. Perhaps s~dents tend to be . passive in their English lessons, especIally m o~al lesson~ and thus, they are shy to speak in front of the cla~s. Th~ ttght teachmg schedule makes it difficult to let students have dISCUSSIO~S frequently. Students are not given opportunities to have 'pre~entatIOns or work with their classmates. All these may be contnbutmg factors to the students' problems and ultimately, they become too dependent on the teacher in the lessons.

Possible Solutions

As I found ~tud~n.ts ~re unable to work independently in the writing lessons: I thmk It IS tIme to think of possible changes in my teaching to motIvate my students t? change their learning habits in English lessons. I focus on the ~OpICS. that the~ write, my role in the writing lessons and the students role m the wnting lessons.

Th~ topics t~at they write may be not interesting enough. Are the tOpICS too gUIded? Are they relevant to their experiences or interests? I recall what they have written: they have written on "Shoplifting' S k t" "A T I h III a upennar e, e ep one Conversation", "Sports Day" and "An ~nforg~ttable Day". The topics are not too boring and teachers have gI~en plc~ures, ~xpressions, or even guided questions to help students wnte theIr stones. Teachers believe that students really need help b~cause they ~annot grasp the sentence structures well and hope the pIctures can stImulate their thinking.

When I teach, I go through the pictures and the expressions with the student~. Sometimes I give some examples to show how to use the expreSSIOns as well. I do almost everything for my students. Do my students really appreciate what I have done? Do they really need my help?

S~dents follow ~~ instructions and make use of the guidelines to wnte the compOSItIons. Sometimes I think they are recording what I have told them, not writing their own way. The teacher usually comments on their work. Can students comment on other's work as well?

I

\

! \

~ I

..


The above questions came to my mind from time to time. To focus on the queries that I came across, I planned to select interesting topics, or use more interesting ways to introduce boring topics. Instead of giving students guided questions and picture cues, I will try to help them develop a semantic map or word webs to enhance their vocabulary power and stimulate ideas. Lastly, the most tremendous change is to let students write a draft before they write in their exercise books. They have to comment on their classmates' work and they are allowed to make amendments before they hand in their work. This strategy combines the ideas of peer conference and process

writing.

Hypothesis

It is undeniable that we write more easily when we are familiar with the topic. We can produce interesting content when we like the topic and we can elaborate on the points without difficulties. Thus, creative ideas can be given. In addition, students may learn to help themselves and get new ideas through interaction with others so as to improve the content of their stories. According to Hirvela (1999), "Through collaboration, students experience meaningful opportunities to practise what they are learning with their. peers and to broaden that knowledge while engaging in the give-and-take of pair or small group activities. Collaborative learning situations enable learners to make appropriate judgments - judgments essential to fully learning the subject at hand" (p.8). The idea of process writing can be launched at the same time. I think students can make some improvelnent in their compositions after their classmates comment on their draft and they can have an opportunity to review their work.

The Action Research

Objectives

The phrase "think big, start small" describes my view of the action research process. I will not make dramatic changes in my teaching in order to minimise the anxiety that may be aroused among students. Furthermore, I still have to finish the syllabus in time. I do not want


to ?e behind the schedule. Thus, the matters concerned with this actIOn research would be confined to the following:

"

• to encourage students to write creative ideas· , to let students develop good organisational ability in ·t· . and wn mg, •

• to enable students to help themselves, and improve their work by means of peer conference and process writing.

Target Students

A top S2 class was chosen to join the action research since the expe~ted to come ~cross l~ss difficulty in getting used to y n:~ teachmg methodolo.gles. TheIr English standard is a little bit hi her tha~ ot~er classes m the same form and they are less likel t~ be belllnd m the teaching schedule. y

Duration

The action research lasted for 2 terms (approximately 7 months)

Steps

The first stage - The pilot study (Mid May 1999)

1. ~nvestigating how students feel about their English lessons and theIr problems in learning English

Having analysed the data which are reported in Appendix 1, it was ~ound t~at students agree that English is important as English is an mternatIOnal. langu~ge and ~hey can obtain good jobs if they have g?od ~rofic~ency m EnglIsh. They prefer to have games and ~lscusslOns m the lessons. They have problems in w . t' F ll1stanc~, they find ~t difficult to come up with new ideas ~~~g~OPi~~ a~e bonn.g. ~hey thInk that they can write more easily if the teacher gIves gmdelmes an~ they can write interesting and familiar topics. ~owever, I am fascmated by the suggestions for the writing lessons gIVen by the students. They suggested:

• having discussions with classmates· ,


• sharing their own work with other classmates;

• •

teacher giving a sample of the writing;

giving examples; and

• teaching interesting topics.

Students' suggestions, to a certain extent, are some of the possible solutions that I have in my mind (see Appendix 1).

2. Changes in topics and teaching methodology in writing lessons

I had to teach students to write instructions. Instead of asking students to write "the Recipe of Soya-braised Cabbage" which they had never eaten before, I let them write a special recipe for Father's Day.

In the first lesson, before students started to write, I showed th~~ a recipe. Then I discussed with students the special features of wntmg instructions. All their responses were written on the blackboard and were organised in form of a semantic map (see Appendix ~). T~en I asked them to write a recipe for Fathers' Day. They worked m pairs to brainstorm ideas and put down their ideas by using a semantic map. Finally, students wrote their own recipe individually.

3. Peer response, revising and editing

I showed students my recipe "Sweet and Sour Pork" which was full of mistakes in granunar, content, organisation, etc. I read through the recipe with the students and invited them .to. give their views on the instructions of the recipe. Then, I put theIr Ideas on the blackboard and reviewed them. Finally, we added new points where necessary.

The above procedures told how students could co~ent on the~r classmate's work and make constructive suggestions to Improve theIr writing. Then, I distributed and went through t~e p.eer ~esponse checklist with the students (see Appendix 3). Workmg m paIrs, they read their partner's recipe, recorded comments on the checklist ~nd took turns to tell each other their feedback. After exchangIng responses, students edited their writing.


4. Evaluation

The performance of students was satisfactory. Some of them could write very interesting ideas. They could include very strange ingredients to write a special recipe. I asked students if the peer conferences and process writing helped them make improvements on their work. They liked the idea of process writing since they could have an opportunity to edit their work. They found the suggestions about the content useful. However, they came across difficulties when picking out the grammatical mistakes.

Peer conferences and process writing can help students be more confident in producing new ideas. However, the English standard of the students may not be high enough to help their classmates with grammatical mistakes. I think I can still let them work in pairs to brainstonn ideas before they start to write and they may comnlent on content only. I can help them to underline the grammatical mistakes and they may discuss their mistakes with their partners before editing their work.

The second stage - The Action Research (September 1999 to April 2000)

Teachers in my school are worried about the deteriorating writing ability of students. So, the focus of S 1 to S3 teachers in the academic year is to strengthen students' writing ability. All S I -S3 teachers agreed to use process writing in the writing lessons.

i.The First Topic

I repeated the steps that I used in the pilot study when I taught a new class of S2 students this academic year. Although the students are also classified as a more able class, their English standard is weak. The first topic that they wrote about was "Life in Vancouver." They had just learnt to use the comparatives of adjectives and I wanted them to compare life in Vancouver and in Hong Kong. Students still could not get ideas on what to write although I had previously given them information such as the population, pace of life, area and nationalities of the people. They had to think of some more aspects to make comparisons between these two cities with their classmates.

i

\


When I glanced through their drafts, I found that most of them had written very short descriptions only. The paragraphs ,:"ere poorly organised. These problems implied that the students dId not have much to write on. The students told me they really did not know where to start and what to write. They knew little about Vancouver.

I had never thought of this problem. Perhaps they did not see the reason why they had to make comparisons between these two places. I think it would be better if I could introduce a context to them. For example, an eleven-year-old girl is going to deci~e where to live and students have to give her some advice by companng the two places. I helped them underline their mistakes and comme~t on the conte~t. of their draft. However, they still made a lot of mIstakes after edItIng their work and the organisation was poor.

2. The Second Topic

Students had to write on "An unforgettable Day". The topic was designed by an S2 English teacher and she added some pictur~ cues to guide students. Nevertheless, I found too Inuch help was gIVen and thus I only gave the first three pictures to the s~dents and let"them write their own story. I emphasized the word unforgettable and reminded thenl to pay more attention to create the elements ?f an unforgettable day. The first three pictures we~e about some chIldren who started their journey early in the mornmg and they ~et each other at the railway station. Students quickly thought of gomg on a picnic. The majority of the students wrote about ~n unforgettable picnic day. But was it really unforgettable? The chIldren could not have a barbecue because it was a rainy day! They spent much effort on writing the events but neglected the importance of describing the feelings of the characters.

Students made fewer mistakes and the story was well-organised when compared to the first topic. This can be explained as th~ type of writing will influence their performance. The second tOPIC was a narrative whereas the first one was argumentative. They made apparent improvement after I had told the whole class their common problems on content. '


3. The Third Topic

Students worked on the topic "My -·Favourite Dinner". I reminded them of the use of a semantic map to brainstorm ideas. Students thought of six important aspects of descriptions: When? Who? Where? When? What? How? (see Appendix 4). Then we further discussed the questions raised from these words. The next step was to choose some suitable adjectives. Finally, I talked about the outline of the story with theln. I tried to put the important aspects of the descriptions together so that students could have a clearer idea of what they had to write and how to organise their story in a more systematic way. Students then wrote their own story.

The lesson was videotaped and students took part actively in the discussion. However, they did not feel comfortable when facing the camera. They were too shy to speak up. They only munnured the answers and most frequently I had to repeat their answers. I still felt quite satisfied with their performance in the lesson on that day. I knew they had tried their best to join the discussion. Interesting descriptions about the restaurant were found when I marked students' compositions. They really spent much effort on the content of the story. Some of them wrote a detailed description and their performance was encouraging though many mistakes were found.

I had a short chat with the project leader who gave me much support in launching the action research. She thought that I had given too much help to my students during the lesson. I considered the objectives of this lesson. I wanted to help students write creative ideas and improve their organizational ability. Brainstorming ideas and adjectives was a good way to stimulate their thinking. Helping students draw the outline of the story was to train them to develop a habit of organising the ideas before writing. I think we should not ask a child to walk when the adults do not show them how to walk. Teachers should set a good example for students to follow. After having ample practice, students will grasp the techniques of organization. I do not think I am giving too much help but necessary help.


Conclusion

Although peer conferences and process wntmg are conducive to teaching writing, teachers could not afford to spend too much time trying out the techniques. When I started to carry out the action research at the beginning of the academic year, all junior form English teachers also adopted the process writing in their writing lessons. Their comment on this technique is that it is too time-consuming and not as helpful as expected. They realised that students' ability was a problem and peer conferencing was almost impossible. Teachers would not recommend the use of peer conferences. Most students were unable to spot the mistakes and the weaknesses in their classmates' essays. The reason was that they shared the same problem as each other. They obviously had no idea about what to improve in the compositions. The job then became the burden of the teachers. It seemed that teachers were marking the same story twice (the draft and the final work). The performance of the students varied when writing different topics~ More familiar topics would most probably lead to better results.

Is process writing a total failure? There is no doubt that process writing is an opportunity to train students to be independent learners. It allows editing and sharing of ideas. These are the most crucial processes in writing. Besides, students become more aware of their strengths and weaknesses. They also focus more on the content. and are eager to make improvements.

Since it is difficult to finish the syllabus in time when using process writing to conduct the writing lessons, I terminated the action research in April. Teachers still consider using process writing in the first term of the academic year but we will give up peer conferencing.


Acknowledgements

~ h.ereb~ have to send my hearty thanks to the Research Team of City mversity of Hong Kong, who helped me set the questionnaires anal se

the data collected, ~nd sugge~t alternatives in teaching writing. The actron research really proVIded me WIth some insights of teaching in the future.

Reference

Hirvela, A. (1999!. Collaborative writing instruction and communities of readers and wnters. TESOL Journal, 8(2), 7-12.

126 Action Research in EL T Adopting Process Writing 127

Appendix 1

Analysis of Students' Feedback on Learning English Grammar

Qu. nO.l Students' Feedback . INO. of Responses (36 pps)

1. Is learning English important to you? Why or why not?

YES-10 English is an important language

English is an intemationallanguage 12 English is a major subject 1 I can communicate with foreigners 1 I can further study 1 I can have a good job 4 I like English

2. How do you feel about the ways the teachers teach English in your school?

I can understand teachers 1 Okay 2

1 Quite boring 5 Quite good 3 Teachers are good

Teachers teach well 9 Lessons are interesting 2 Teachers speak very fast 1 Teachers use simple words to teach us 1 Teachers use Cantonese when we have difficulties 1 Teachers help us when we have difficulties 1 Teachers' pronunciation is good 1

3. Write 5 things that you like about your English lessons. Composition lessons 1 Discussions 3

Teacher gives us quizzes to do 1 Teacher is good and nice 3 Teacher points out and corrects our mistakes 1 Teacher teaches very well 2 Teacher teaches difficult words 1 Teacher teaches us extra things 1 Teacher uses Cantonese 2 Teacher gives examples 1 We pay attention in class 1

4. Write 5 things that you do not like about your English lessons. Answer questions in English 1 Better to give one word answer 1 Boring 12 Can't understand the lesson 1 Can't understand what the teachers say 1 Classmates laugh at me when I make mistakes 1 Comprehension 1 Difficult to express myself in English 1 Do exercises on the textbook 1 I am not confident enough to answer questions 1 Learning grammar 1 Memorize the text for dictation 3 No discussion 1 Not enough exercises 1 Not enough practice 1 Read textbook 1 Teachers are too anxious about the pupils 1 Teachers pick up pupils' mistakes in front of the whole class 1 Too boring to read 1 Too much homework 2 Too many things to do in English lessons 1 Too much time on doing classwork 1 Topics too boring 1

Easy to understand 1 Everyone answers questions 1 I read books 1 Interesting 3 Learn new words 1 Learning English grammar, vocabulary and writing 3

Listening 1 Oral 1 Some fun games 4 Teacher explains new words 1 Teacher gives notes 1

5. What do you like about grammarl writing lessons? Can use the language learnt 1 Have discussion before writing 1 Have enough time to do composition 1 Have more time to think before writing 1 Interesting topics 4 Learn how to write 2 Learn more grammar through writing 1 Learn more new words 1 Learn new things 1 Mixed classes 1

----~~~~~---~~------------------~--


1 My writing is good 2 No comment 1 Practice writing Teacher gives examples

2

Teacher paints out grammatical mistakes 1 1

Writing letters

6. What do you not like about grammar! writing lessons? 3

Boring Can't express myself in English

1

Describing pictures in writing 1

Difficult to come up with new ideas 2 1

Doing composition Don't know what to write

1

Have to finish composition in class 3 1

Lessons are too long Too difficult to remember things

1

Too many supplementary exercises 1

Too many things to write 1

Topics are too difficult 1

7. What is the easiest thing about learning grammar! writing?

Can write what I think 1

Easy to express myself 1 1

Everything is easy Explain more about the topic and the purpose

1

Have clear guidelines in handouts 1

Learn from other's work 1 1

Listening to the teacher 1 Read more books Teacher gives guidelines

2 1

Tenses 3 Topic is interesting TopiC is what I am familiar with

3

Understand the lesson 2 1

Word limit is okay Writing simple and short passages

2

8. What is the most difficult thing about learning grammar! writing?

Can't express my ideas 2

Can't understand the teacher 1 1

Doing correction 4 Grammar Not enough time for writing

3 1

Making sentences

\'l'!i"

Pictures are not clear enough Tenses Too difficult to understand Too much reading to do Word limit is large Writing long paragraphs


1 2 1 1 1 3

~~ss:n~;t suggestions would you like to give to improve your grammarl writing

Competition Do more exercises 1 Explain the vocabulary 1 Free writing 1 Give examples 1 Have discussions with classmates 3 Have more time 4 Improve myself 1 Making sentences, oral practice, teaching common grammar ~ errors

Pay attention Read newspaper Sharing own work with other classmates Speak more English Teach interesting topiCS Teacher gives a sample of the writing Work harder

1 1 2 1 3 4 2

10. How do you feel about your performance in learning English? Can be better Can have more exercises to work on ~ Do not know how to use the language learnt 2 Don't like English 1 Good Hard to learn 3 I want to improve myself 1 Just fair Learn phonies 1 ~w~ 1 Pay attention in class most of the time ~ Read ~ore books· 2 Sometimes bad, sometimes good 1 Too lazy 1 Try my best and ask somebody else 1 Watch English TV programmes 1


Appendix 2

A Semantic Map to Show How to Write a Recipe Ham and Egg Sandwich - An Example

Ingredients 2 pieces of ham 2 eggs 2 slices of

bread

Instructions

1. First, .... .. 2. Second, .... .. 3. Next, .... .. 4. Then, .... .. 5. Finally, .... ..

Recipe Writing

Utensils

• frying pan

• a small knife

Instructions

2. short sentences 3. simple language 4. no need to use the

subject pronoun


Appendix 3

Name of Author Title of Composition Date

Read your partner's writing and give comments. Purpose and Organisation 1. Stated purpose clearly. 2. Organised thoughts well. 3. Has a beginning, middle, and end. 4. Chose words that helped make points clear. VVordsl Sentence Use 5. Used some new vocabulary. 6. Wrote complete sentences. 7. Used correct subject-verb agreement. 8. Used the past tense correctly. Format 9. Spelled words correctly. 10. Used capitals to start sentences. 11. Used periods and questions marks correctly. 12. Identified paragraphs. Genre 13. Wrote short sentences 14. Used simple language 15. Used simple present tense

16. Used numbering to indicate sequencing

The part I liked best was:

Yes No 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

0 0 0 0 0 0

0 0

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

....................................................................................................................................

This piece can be improved by: .......................................................................................................................................


Appendix 4

A Semantic Map to Show How to Write "My Favourite Dinner"

How? • did you feel about the

restaurant? • about the waitresses/

waiters/ guests? • about the food?

My Favourite Dinner

Where? • did you go?

Developing Reciprocal Teaching in a Reading Class Jassar Foo

Introduction

I came to know the University Grants Committee funded project when I attended a conference for secondary school teachers at the University of Science and Technology two years ago. This project captured my attention because it could help to enhance my knowledge of English language teaching pedagogy. At the same time, I would have many opportunities to meet language professionals and practitioners who have the same goal of EL T professional development as I do.

As a matter of fact, not until I got involved in the project did I start to understand what action research really means. Action research is a teacher-initiated classroom research which is a small scale investigation in a teacher's own classroom. It should be small in scale, be practical and be realistic (McNiff, Lomax, and Whitehead, 1996). Action research does not only help one to identify problem areas in teaching and to make changes, but also improves one's teaching whether the teacher is already satisfied or not with his or her teaching. So, its goal can either be to make changes to the existing teaching and learning approach or to make improvement (Richards and Lockhart, 1994). It is also flexible enough to allow a change in the focus along the way of the investigation.

In this paper, I will describe my action research plan as well as how I adopted the method of reciprocal teaching in an Advanced Level Examination reading class, and discuss how effective it was.


Literature Review

Schema Theory, Text Organisation or Reading Strategies

The readers' schematic awareness of text organisation and reading strategies are important factors that influence comprehension ability. None of them should be overlooked. Why, then are reading strategies being investigated in this paper? There are two reasons: first, I cannot only provide examination class students practise with the same types of articles or same types of text organisation. I have the responsibility to provide them with opportunities to explore different types of texts with different content. The Hong Kong A Level (HKAL) Examination Report 1999 already states the following requirements for section C of the exainination (Hong Kong Examinations Authority, 1999):

Candidates must learn to address texts on topics outside of the safe, familiar themes about Hong Kong and China, because part of the value of mastering the English language is the ability to deal with and learn about things outside a person's everyday experience or worldview (p.503).

Although the setters of Section C do not purposely choose extremely alien or inaccessible topics for candidates to tackle, they do try to encourage candidates to read widely in their preparation for the examination (p.503).

Candidates should realize that there may always be slight variations in the types of texts used for all exercises in Section C (p.505).

Second, recent research reminds me that teachers should equip themselves with knowledge about what reading strategies are and give clear reading instruction to students on what skills they have to utilise when reading a text. Alastair (1991) conducted research with 24 secondary school EFL teachers. on what kind of advice on reading and desirable reading strategies they gave to their students and compared their views with students' knowledge on reading skills. His major findings were that the great majority of the students did not write detailed accounts of reading strategies they applied. His

Developing Reciprocal Teaching in a Reading Class 135

fmdings indicate either students were not faIniliar with such strategies or that teachers did not give them .. clear reading instruction.' ~urthex:more, McDonough and Shaw (1993) also pointed out that" ... In readmg classes we sometimes have a confusion of aims: often the st~~e?ts are not being taught. reading and how to develop reading abIl~tIes per ~e, but rather a wntten text is being used as a vehicle for the mtroductIOn of new vocabulary and/or structures" (p.1 03).

Reciprocal Teaching

Reci?rocal teaching is an instructional activity that takes place in the readmg class.

According to Parlincsar and Brown (1984), reciprocal teaching is a procedu~e wher~ teacher and students take turns leading a dialogue concemIn.g sectIOns ?f a text. Its purpose is to reinforce the teaching an~ leammg of readmg comprehension, and motivate students to be a~tIve re~ders who can monitor their own learning and thinking. The dIalogue IS ~tructure~ b~ the use of four comprehension-fostering and compre~e~sIOn-momtonng strategies. They are self-directed sUl~~nzmg (review), questioning, clarifying and predicting. At the begInnI~g~ the teacher models the key activities of self-review summanzmg, questioning, clarifying and predicting. The students then tak.e turns to lead the group by adopting the four skills. This method IS appealing because the authors state that:

It (recip~ocal teaching) led to a significant improvement in t~e quahty of the summaries and questions. It also led to sIz~ble gains on criterion tests of comprehension, reliable mamtenance over time, generalization to classroom co~prehe~sion tests, transfer to novel tasks that tapped the tram~d skills of su~arizing, questioning, and clarifying, and Improvement m standardized comprehension scores (Parlincsar and Brown, 1984, p.117).

Since. m~ st~dent~ are in an examination class, passing the public exammatIOn IS theIr goal. I .hop.e reciprocal teaching can not only help my students pass the exa~InatIOn, but ultimately, it can also develop my students to become actIve readers who learn to monitor their own learning and thinking.


At fIrst sight, it seems to me that reciprocal teaching cannot ~eet the requirement of the examination syllabus as only four skIlls ~re focused upon. However, the authors explain that the four re.adlng strategies embody the following functions, which are covered III the examination syllabus:

1. Understanding the purposes of reading, both explicit and implicit.

2. Activating relevant background knowledge.

3. Allocating attention so that concentration can be focused on the major content at the expense of trivia.

4. Critically evaluating content for internal consistency, and compatibility with prior knowledge and common sense.

5. Monitoring ongoing activities to see if c~m~rehen.sion is occurring, by engaging in such activities as pen OdIC reVIew and self-interrogation.

6. Drawing and testing inferences of many kinds, including interpretations, predictions, and conclusions (p.120).

Four Comprehension Fostering and Comprehension Monitoring Strategies

Summarizing

"It [Summarizing] was engaged in to state to the teacher or the group what had just happened in the text and as a self-test that the contel:t had been understood"(Palincsar and Brown,1984, p.121). ThIS strategy provides students with the opportunity to identify, paraphrase and integrate the most important infonnation in the text.

Questioning

The strategy of questioning carries the students one more, step a.long in the comprehension activity. When the students generate questIOns, they fIrst identify the signifIcant information in the text. Then they


pose this infonnation in question form and self-test to ascertain they themselves can answer their own question.~.

The obvious benefit the students gain from self-questioning is that they can "frame their own questions about the reading material" rather than rely on the teacher's questions. It can also operate "on the principle that students must interact meaningfully with the text to generate reasonable questions" (Helfeldt and Henk, 1990, p.Sl0).

Clarifying

"Clarifying occurred if there were confusions either in the text (unclear referent, etc.) or in the student's interpretation of the text" (Palincsar and Brown, 1984, p.121). This strategy draws the students' attention to the many reasons why text is diffIcult to understand, for example, new vocabulary, unclear reference words or unfatniliar or diffIcult concepts. It also alerts students to solve the problems by rereading, reading ahead or asking for help.

Predicting

"Prediction was attempted if the students or teachers recognized any cues that served to herald forthcoming material" (Palincsar and Brown, 1984, p.121). In fact, this strategy requires students to hypothesize what the author is going to discuss next in the text. This provides a purpose of reading, such as confinning or disproving their hypotheses. The predicting strategy also facilitates the use of text organisation as students learn that headings, subheadings and questions imbedded in the text are useful means of predicting what might occur next.

These four reading strategies are the means of not only aiding students to construct meaning from text, but also monitoring their reading to ensure that they in fact understand what they are reading.

The Instructional Mode - Modeling

To help students acquire the above four strategies, modeling is an initial and essential phase in reciprocal teaching. Why does modeling have a role? Durkin's research (1978-79) has shown us that teachers


in reading class neither model how to read different types of texts nor provide adequate instruction, such as comp~eh~nsion ~dvice ~nd counseling. Most of the time is devoted to assIgnmg readIng, askmg questions and checking whether students' answers are correct or not

. (Alastair, 1991). Through modeling, the teacher demonstrates to the class how to process the information by adopting the four focused reading strategies. After modeling, the students are then divided into groups to practice the four skills. Gradually, they acq~ire the way. of conducting the dialogues with little or no teacher assIstance. Dunng the process, the teacher observes and evaluates th~ st~dent~' performance and assists them not only in becoming profiCient Ion theIr use of the strategy, but also in upgrading the qualIty of

comprehension.

Rationale of Collaborative Learning

In their past experience of learning to read, I am sure my students would have received SOlne type of instruction on reading skills, but '''having' a skill is not sufficient, the reader must be able to apply the skills appropriately in a variety of contexts" (Richgels and Hansen, 1984, p.3l4). Also, the reading lessons always take place in one-w~y communication, students seldom have interaction. I hope I can aSSIst my students and gradually increase their responsibility :ror

independently applying useful strategies in their reading. So learnmg co-operatively can help to achieve the purpose. As Kohonen (1992) has stated "a team environment where learners celebrate each other's successes and provide assistance to each other is likely to promote more positive peer relationships, social support, and, partly for that reason, higher self-esteem and academic achievement" (p.34).

Background

1. The Students

My students are all sixth and seventh form students, betw~en 0

17 and 19 years of age. After finishing the seventh form, t\ley WIll SIt for a public examination, the Advanced Level Examination, in which Use of English (UE) is one of the examination papers. In the past three

-----------------------


yea~s, the o:erall resul~s of UE have been rising steadily. But one sectIon, SectIOn C Readmg and Language Systems, is still the lowest. I ~tarte~ to think ho~ I could i~prove my students' ability through thIS proJect. So I deCIded to reVIew again the examination syllabus and look at my existing teaching approach in the. reading class to make some improvement.

2. The Examination

The examination (Hong Kong Examination Authority, 2000, p.481-484) consists of five sections, they are:

• Section A Listening,

• Section B Writing,

• • •

Section C Reading and Language Systems,

Section D Oral and

Section E Practical Skills for Work and Study.

The first four sections (A-D) are the proficiency sections which focus on a range of productive and receptive skills. The last section (E) concentrates on work and study skills.

Section A, Listening, tests the ability of candidates to understand organise and interpret spoken English as used by educated and tluen~ speakers of English as an intemationallanguage.

Section B, Writing, tests the ability of candidates to write extended English discourse.

Sectioon C, Rea~ing an~ Language Systems, tests the ability of candIdates to achIeve ~n m-depth understanding of an expository text and t?e exte?t to whIch the systems of the English language have been InternalIsed by the candidates.

Section D, Oral, tests the ability of candidates to give an oral presentation and take part in a small-group discussion.

Section oE, . Practical Ski~ls for Work and Study, tests practical commUlllcatIOn through SImulated work and study situations. The

_________________________________ ----1


language modes will be restricted to reading and writing, with a proportion of items being of the objective type.

3. The Syllabus

Since my students are an examination-oriented class, the syllabus becomes an important guideline to evaluate whether I have covered all the required skills. The first step, therefore, is to fully understand all the reading requirements of the exam syllabus. There are two sections involving reading skills: Section C, Reading and Language Systems and Section E, Practical Skills for W or~ an~ Study. !~e other sections are designed to assess students' hstemng, wntmg and speaking skills (see Appendix 1).

The following is a summary of reading skills that students .sho~ld acquire according to the syllabus of Hong Kong ExammatIOn Authority (2000):

Section C Part I Reading Comprehension - In-depth understanding of Expository texts

• • •

•

central ideas

writer's purposes/assumptions

differentiate the most important & relevant ideas of those purposes

interpretation on particular words or phrases from the context of the text

Section E (Practical Skills for Work and Study)

• scanning

• skillllning

• reading for detailed information

• writer's purposes, feelings & attitudes

• assumptions made by the writer

• making inferences or predictions


4. The EXisting Teaching Approach

There are two models I usually adopt "in my reading class. They are top-down approach and bottom up approach. I first adopted the top-down approach to prompt my students to predict the main theme from the title of a passage, and paragraph by paragraph to elicit the main ideas of the passage and the standpoint of the writer. Afterwards, I adopted the bottom-up approach to discuss the vocabulary and some unfamiliar sentence structure. To implement these two approaches, I used a lot of questions to prompt my students.

Finally, I would go through the after-text comprehension questions. When students attempted to answer the comprehension questions, I would praise them if the answer was correct. Usually I would ask them to locate where they got the answer in the passage. If the answer was incorrect, I guided them back into the passage. to the appropriate ~aragraph where the answer could be found. If it was necessary, the hne(s) where the answer could be found was given, as well as prompts to help them find the answer. The reasons why the answer was correct would be discussed and mutually agreed upon. For students themselves, the main purpose of reading seemed only to locate the information in order to answer the comprehension questions. The reading strategies were neither well infonned nor were the reading skills enhanced systematically. At the end of the reading lesson, students would grasp or consolidate some reading strategies vaguely, but the objectives of reading would not be specifically clear to them.

I thought my teaching was very leamer-centered and very interactive as I raised a lot of questions to stimulate my students to interact with the text and the writer mentally. Basically, I was contented with what I was teaching. But sometimes, I still observed that students in the reading class got bored or played a very passive role because of their low involvement. However, after reading the transcription of one of my reading lessons (June 1999), I found surprisingly that my teacher talk far out-weighed the students' responses. This approach is called the "typical and unilateral questioning polices of having students answer text or teacher-based questions only" (Helfeldt and Henk, 1990, p.SIO). This sort of interaction has been also caricatured by


Nunan (1991) as learners rummaging around in the text for the answer, interspersed with lengthy teacher monologues. I neither provided my students opportunities to take some responsibility for their own learning, nor provided them with any reading instruction. I could not recognize how actively my students participated in the reading process, nor how they interacted with the text and the writer, or what problems they encountered with the text, particularly for those students who were shy about raising their problems. The reason was very simple: I could not read their minds when they read silently. This was exactly what Palinscar and Brown (1984) referred to when they described "a relatively passive participant who responds to instruction but does not fully understand the activities she has been induced to use"(p.122). Therefore, I decided to audiotape my lessons in order to investigate what was happening.

My Action Research

1. Purpose

Now that that I have completed the training, I expect that my students will become active readers instead of passive ones, and that they can build up an active interaction with the text. I also that expect my students might experience success in the activities they participate in, as well as enhance their general reading skills (summarising, questioning, clarifying and predicting) and build up the habit of reading frequently for academic purposes and for pleasure. Finally, I hope to upgrade the results of their examinations.

2. My Objectives can be Stated as Follows:

• To help students to achieve an in-depth understanding of a given text/passage (such as the author's aims or assumptions, the central theme or idea of a passage) by adopting the appropriate reading strategies of summarising, questioning, clarifying, and predicting;

• To encourage students to interact actively with the texts;

• To make the reading class as interesting as possible;


• To improve students' ability to learn from texts.

To achieve these objectives, I designed -different research cycles that enabled me to monitor and evaluate the effectiveness of the new teaching and learning approach.

3. My Action Research Cycles

A. The first action research cycle - Identifying the research focus

In December 1998, I tried to investigate listening skills in a sixth form class. This lesson was video-taped. After watching the video, I evaluated my lesson to see if there was anything interesting to investigate. I found that at the beginning of the listening task, I gave students instruction or guidelines, and then they started to do their task. Finally I asked them to contribute what they heard. Then I consulted the advice of the project leader. I decided to change the focus into another area. This is an advantage of action research that allows me to have such flexibility to change the research focus, although I lost some time in having to change my focus.

B. The second action research cycle

a. Pilot Study

After a careful consideration of the team leader's advice, I finally turned to investigate the area of reading in JWle 1999. At that moment, I still did not have a clear direction of investigation. Therefore, I invited a group of students to take part in a pilot study where they were asked to do a reading assignment. A series of questions came to my mind: What areas should I focus on to observe? Do I need to give my students some guidelines before the actual reading starts? What reading materials should I prepare for this activity? What are the criteria for selecting students to participate in the pilot? After the piloting, when I would ask them to write a reflection, what guidelines should I provide? All these questions will be addressed in the investigation. The purpose of the pilot study was to gain an overview of the students' process of reading.


b. The Participants

Six representative students from a sixth form class were invited to take part in the pilot study. These students were from three different skill levels: upper, middle and lower. Each level had 2 students. The criteria for the selection were based on their performance on Section C Part 1 Reading Comprehension of their First Term Examination. However, only 5 students showed up. .

c. The Procedures

This stage took an hour. Students read an article and then completed the comprehension questions. 1999 Advanced Supplementary Level Examination Section C Part 1 "McDonald's in East Asia" was randomly chosen as the trial reading material. The time allowed was 20 minutes, which was the same as the time suggested for the Public Examination. Soon after they had finished their task, the students were asked to write down what skills they adopted in the process, and what problems they came across.

d. Students' Reflection

The following sums up the skills the students adopted during the process of reading:

• guessing the meaning of the passage

• skimming and scanning

• guessing the meaning of difficult words

• following the organisation of the article

• scanning the multiple choice (MC) questions first

• reading one paragraph and doing the questions related to that paragraph

• before reading the passage, first read or skim the question

• studying the topic and trying to predict what the passage was about


Problems the students encountered included the following:

• • • • • •

low reading speed

cannot understand particular words or phrases

difficult to find the best option of the MC question

cannot guess the meaning of words

cannot follow the main idea because it was not directly stated

difficult to understand the writer's meaning

Analysing my students' problem, 'low reading speed' reflects that my students seldom read; 'cannot understand particular words or phrases' and 'cannot guess the meaning of words' reflect that they are weak in guessing meaning in context. The last problems they encountered are about the main idea not directly stated and difficult to understand the writer's meaning reflect that my students can only follow ideas that are stated explicitly.

e. Teacher's Reflection

While my students were doing the exercise silently, I observed that 4 of them read the multiple-choice comprehension questions first, and then read the passage to locate the necessary infonnation. Most of them pointed to the lines in which they were reading. Soon after finishing the comprehension exercise, they were asked to write a brief reflection to describe what reading skills they adopted throughout the process and what problems they came across and how to overcome them.

In vi~w of the .students' reflection, only the skills of skimming, scannmg, guessmg unfanliliar vocabulary and prediction were adopted, but the skills of summarizing, questioning and clarifying were not mentioned. However, these skills might help to achieve the understanding of the central ideas, purposes or assumptions of the writer and in making inferences. These areas were also stated as their problems in their reflection. Thus, I moved to the intervention stage to see whether reciprocal teaching could help to make any improvement.


C. The Investigation

Because of time pressures in the form seven's timetable, I could only use 3 lessons from the normal timetable to try out the method of reciprocal teaching. Each lesson lasted for two hours.

Phases of reciprocal teaching

Phase I 7 Nov. Introduction of Explanation 2000 Reciprocal The purpose ofR.T., the four

Teaching (RT) strategies that will be learned, why they are important to enhance reading comprehension.

Modeling the Western Myths four strategies The introductory paragraph

1998 UE examination paper

Phase II 9 Nov. Modeling and Western Myths

2000 group work The second paragraph.

Group-Work The third paragraph

Phase III 14 Nov. Group work Western Myths

2000 The sixth and seventh paragraphs

Phase I-Introductory and Modeling Session (7 Nov. '00)

a. The Subjects

I selected another group of students to try out the process of reciprocal teaching. They were all seventh form students. I selected this group as a target first because their first term test results of Section C were the lowest compared with the other groups. Anot~er key reason was that the number of students was 18. It would be eaSIer for an action research beginner, like me, to manage, than a larger class would have been.


b. The Procedures

There were two parts in this lesson. Part I was the introduction of reciprocal teaching, and Part II was teacher modeling.

Part I The Introduction of the Reciprocal Teaching

The first part of the lesson was that I introduced reciprocal teaching to the experimental group. The explanation included what benefits the students could get from this approach, the four reading strategies that would be learned, and why they are important to enhance reading comprehension.

Part II Teacher Predicting

I modeled how to conduct reciprocal teaching. I modeled four comprehension strategies: summanzmg, questioning, making clarification, and predicting what will happen next. Reading material was selected from the 1998 past paper, Western Myth: A segment of the article. After the lesson, students were asked to write down their reflection - What did they leanl from the modeling?

c. Students' Reflections

Here are some extracts of the students' feedback:

"Most importantly, (reciprocal teaching) makes me deeply understand the paragraphs. "

"(J) clearly know what does the writer want to say in each paragraph. " (writer s intended meaning)

((Let me understand more about the passage. "

((We can learn how to read the passage better and in more detail. "

Some students said that the reading ability was improved too:

(( (Reciprocal teaching) improves my reading ability. "

(( (Reciprocal teaching) enhances my comprehension ability. "

\ I

- --------------------------------------------


d. Teacher's Reflection

The students' feedback was astonishingly promising. This definitely encouraged me to go on to the next phase of the investigation. In the meantime, it was surprising to find that reciprocal teaching could provide students with more opportunities to practise their oral skills. There were two students who reflected this feedback. It indicates that as the teacher, I dominated the class less and students themselves had more participation. It really amended my beliefs that teaching reading comprehension was boring, but it might be more fun for my students.

Phase II - Modeling and Group Work (9 Nov. '00)

a. The Procedure

To reinforce the four comprehension strategies, I modeled reading the second paragraph of the same article. Then the students were formed into groups randomly to try out reciprocal teaching. No group leader was assigned this time because I had hoped that everyone would take turns to lead the group and become a more active reader. Before they started, instructions were given that everyone in the groups should formulate at least one question to ask their .group members, and that when providing answers, they should try to clarify their answer as clearly as possible so that the others could follow. At the end of the segment, they had to summarise the main idea. The group discussion was audio-tapped. Finally, they were asked to answer four

open-ended questions.

b. Discussion of Students' Dialogue - Reciprocal Teaching

To investigate how the students applied the focused skills, one of the groups was randomly chosen and its dialogue was transcribed. The following is the segment of the text and the unedited dialogue of the

discussion.

The first segment of the text

To modernise, do non-Western societies abandon their own cultures and adopt core elements of Western culture? From time to time, leaders of such societies have thought it


nec~s~ary to do so. More often, leaders of non-Western SOCIetIes have pursued modernisation b t . t d W t . . . '. u reJec e

es ermsatIOn. Japan, SIngapore, Taiwan, Saudi Arabia, and, to. a lesser d~gree, Iran have become modern societies wIth~ut becommg Western. China is clearly modernising but certamly not Westernising. (1998 AS-UE-C)

Table 1 Reciprocal Dialogue of Phase II

Line Student Dialogue

1 Sl Do non-western society chooses to adopt modernization or westernization?

2 S2 Most often leaders o/non-western societies choose to be modernizes not to westernize.

3 Sl What are the countries choose to modernize?

4 S2 For example, Japan, Singapore, Taiwan, Saudi Arabia and even they are lesser degree Ireland.

5 S3 For line 44,45, what is the word 'such society' refer to?

6 Sl Is it the non-western society?

7 S2 1 think so.

8 Sl How about China, what ... which culture do they adopt?

9 S2 China te~ds to become modernize just like Singapore and Japan but certall1ly not westernize.

It. was ~ four-member group, but only 3 members participated in the diSCUSSI?~. In other words,. one of the members remained very quiet. S 1 partIcIpated rather actIvely and tried to raise more questions. Ho,,:ever, when I looked at the quality of the dialogue, the students ObVIO.usl~ had. not mastered. the skills well. They only applied the questIOnIng SkIll. It can be SaId that this was their first time to practise the method.

The second segment of the text

Interaction and borrowing between civilisations have always taken pl~ce.. With modem means of transportation and commulllcatIOn, this borrowing is much more extensive.


Most of the world's great civilisations have borrowed from other civilisations in ways that enhance their own chances of survival. China's absorption of Buddhism from India, scholars agree, failed to produce the 'Indianisation' of China; it instead caused the 'Sinofication' of Buddhism as the Chinese adapted Buddhism to their own purposes and needs. (1998 AS-DE-C)

Table 2 Reciprocal Dialogue of Phase II


1 Sl Okay, lets concluding our (discussion).

2 Sl That:S means interaction and borrowing between civilization are used to enhance their own chances of survival and one of the examples is China. They used to adopt Buddhism from Indian and use it for their needs.

3 S3 Then what are they used to adopt Buddhism... Why they need to adopt Buddhism in China?

4 S2 They adapted Buddhism just for their own purposes and needs as in this paragraph that concluded. I think nowadays many non-western societies, not just by western societies most of the world look civilization and interact and borrow from other civilization so as to attend their survivals and one of the example is China.

The quality of the second dialogue was slightly improved when compared with the first dialogue. Questioning was still used (but is not shown in this part of the extract). The skill of clarifying was found in Lines 2 and 3. Line 4 even involved elaboration. Practice makes perfect, once students were given more opportunities to practice, they could gradually master the skills.

After finishing the interactive activities, the students had to answer the following questions:

1. In what ways did you learn reading skills in the past? Did you enjoy this way of learning?

2. Any significant difference in processing a segment of a text by reciprocal teaching and by regular reading activities? Did you enjoy reciprocal teaching? Why?


3. Which approach can help to enhance your comprehension of a text? Please give your reasons.

4. Do you have confidence to comprehend a similar text by yourself? Please give your reasons.

c. Discussion of Students' Responses

1. Past learning experience in reading

I was surprised that there were two students who responded that, in their past learning experience in reading, "there was no fixed method to learn reading" or (7 don't know there is a way of reading". Their responses 1 imply that reading instruction might not have been well taught by their teachers. F or the ways they learnt reading, some students responded that the ways they learnt reading were "by reading more English articles", "read more English books and do more exercise" and "reading newspaper and do the homework". It is very interesting that reading English articles, books and newspapers or doing more exercises and homework are their ways of learning reading. This suggests that their knowledge of reading skills and strategies is not solid.

When talking about whether they enjoyed their past reading experience, 10 students shared that they did not enjoy it and some of them described their reading experience as "boring ", "too passive" and "read for examination only".

2. Differences between the typical reading class and reciprocal teaching

2.1 The typical reading class

In the past, students read the article only once. They focussed on the main idea without in-depth understanding. I also found that a lot of them only read the questions first and then found the answer, or underlined the key words and then found the answer. Here are some extracts from the students' feedback:

I Students' responses are unedited.


"read the article for one time only. "

"read through the passage without thinking. "

"only see the question first and then find out the answers. "

'focus on the main idea, without in-depth understanding. "

"read the questions and try to focus on the relevant sentence .... only see the question first and then find out the answer ... taught me to study the questions and underline the key words and find the answer.

In view of these responses, the students' reading purpose was unclear. They had the idea that comprehending a text was to ans,:er the after-text questions. Obviously, they had not learnt how to mteract with the text strategically.

2.2 Reciprocal teaching

The response towards reciprocal teaching was very positive. quit~ a number of the students stated that they had learnt questIOnmg techniques. The following are the unedited extracts from the students'

feedback:

"1 have learnt how to raise questions and thus I am more familiar to the article now. "

" ... it can improve my questioning step by step ... "

" ... know how to raise the questions and then solve it. "

" ... make me know how to. raise question and summarize the passage.

"I learn how to raise question and guess the meaning of the text. "

And there were four of them who stated that reciprocal teaching could improve their thinking ability. .

"Now, 1 find it quite interest and make me more incentive to do


reading. It also makers) me more easy to understand the passage."

"we can improve my thinking, we can know how to raise question and make us more enjoy. "

"Yes, now we need to analysis through the question. At the past, we only read it. "

"We can learn the passage more detail and enjoy more reading. We can improve my thinking, we can know to raise question and make us speak more. "

It was so encouraging to see that reciprocal teaching does not only train them in how to read a text, but it also develops their thinking ability. To some extent, students began to playa more active role in the process of reading by adopting this method.

3. Discussion of Questions 3 and 4

When asked which approach enhances their comprehension of a text (Question 3), the majority of the students responded that reciprocal teaching does help because it could direct them to evaluate whether they understand the passage or not. Furthermore, the majority of them clailned that they had more confidence to comprehend a text by adopting the method (Question 4). They explained that now they had a method to follow. However, two of them stated that:

" ... it seems to waste time in examination or test, I think this will better to do homework. "

"I (am) afraid that I don't have enough time during my test or examination. "

Phase III Mixed-Ability Group Work (14 Nov. '00)

a. The Procedure

In this lesson, students were formed into mixed-ability groups. Each group had three members and there were 3 levels of students in each group. They were upper, middle and lower levels. The upper level students were assigned to be group leaders. While all students were


reading the two assigned paragraphs silently, I invited the six leaders to come to me and modeled briefly how to guide the group by using the four focused reading strategies. Then they returned to their group to start the discussion. The discussion was audio-taped. Soon after finishing the group discussion, I asked all the group leaders their experience of being a leader and I asked the other participants to write down their experience of being helped by the leader.

b. The Practice of Reciprocal Teaching in Mixed-Ability Groups

The third segment of the text

Modernisation and economic development neither require nor produce cultural Westernisation. On the contrary, they promote a resurgence of, and renewed commitment to, traditional cultures. Modernisation enhances the economic wealth and military power of a country and encourages people to have confidence in their heritage and to become culturally assertive. At the same time, the movement of people into unfamiliar cities, social settings, and occupations breaks their traditional local bonds, generates feelings of anxiety and alienation, and creates crises of identity. As a result, many non-Western societies have seen a return to indigenous cultures and often this return takes a religious form. The global revival of religion, which is most marked in Muslim and Asian societies, is a direct consequence of modernisation. This revival is almost necessarily anti-Western in form, in SOllle cases rejecting Western culture because it is Christian and subversive, in others because it has almost no religious or moral anchor. (1998 AS-UE-C)

Table 3 Reciprocal Dialogue of Phase III


1 Sl ... the first question about paragraph six is that what is the top (topic) sentence of this paragraph?

2 S2 The top (topic) sentence is the pro toliza tion (moder:nisation) and economy (economic) development neither requires nor Iproduces cultural westernization.


3 Sl Yes, and then from this paragraph, how can a country becom~ modernize: What is the implication from the modernization?

"

4 S2 Modernization enhances the economic wealth and military 1P0wer of the country and encourages people to have confidence in their habituate and become culturally assertive.

5 SI And then next question is: Apartfrom modernization, how can that country avoids become westernize?

6 S2 .. . at line 74 the global...

7 S3 The revival

8 S2 The global revival of religion which is more market ... marked in New Zealand and Asian societies is a direct consequence oj modernization.

9 Sl Yes, that right and one more question from this paragraph is that: What is the advantage ofbecome ... not becoming westernize, just onZv the modernization?

10 S2 The answer is the create crisis of identity.

Due to the workload of the researcher, only one group's transcription was selected for analysis. The selection was based on the leader's ability. When I selected this group, the leader was one of the best students in the class and his participation in class was good too. So I looked at how he applied the skills to help the weaker students in the group. It was shown that the leader tried to lead the group by raising 4 questions in this short dialogue. The transcription also showed that he picked up the important ideas of this segment and successfully led the group to understand the theme. However, one member in this group, S3, was very silent. This member only responded once (Line 7). I cannot ascertain what was said or meant.

The fourth segment of the text

East Asian societies are an interesting case in point. For several centuries they envied the prosperity, technological sophistication, military power, and political cohesion of Western societies. They sought the secret of this success in Western practices and customs, and when they identified what they thought might be the key, they attempted to apply it in their own societies. Now, however, a fundamental


change has occurred: their rediscovery of indigenous values has resulted in their drawing increasingly unflattering comparisons between their own culture and Western culture. Indeed, East Asians today attribute their dramatic economic development not to their import of Western culture but to their adherence to their own culture. They have succeeded, they argue, not because they became like the West, but because they have remained different. (1998 AS-VE-C)

Table 4 Reciprocal Dialogue of Phase III


1 SI ... what is the 'they' refers to?

2 S3 The prosperity sophistication military power and political cohesion of western society.

3 S1 But do you think that this is the truth .. . or we can go on to the sentence. It said that they shock the secret of this success in western practice custom and when they ident~fj' what they thought may be the key that they attempt to apply it in their own societies. Then, do you still think that the word 'they' refers to the above technological sophistication, the military power and so on?

4 S3 May I say yes? In East Asian societies.

5 S1 You mean 'they' refers to the East Asian societies. Yes that right and then the passage goes on to say that they have succeeded in enhancing the economic welfare. I mean the eastern countries they have increased their welfare the same last year. And then do you think that this is all because of the modernization from the eastern countries or they have any difference between many years ago and the few past years?

6 S2 You mean their own culture and the western culture.

7 S1 You are talking about the nine ... ninety-one? Can you elaborate ... can you have a ... ya ...

8 S2 The rediscovery of industrious value has result in the during increasingly and affecting comparison of their own culture and western culture.

9 S1 So you think that in the idea of culture can help them refer to the Eastern Asian countries, you mean?

10 S2 Umh ... You think ha ha then (laughter) I beg your pardon. Would you saying the question again.


11 Sl Ohfrom the this paragraph, the seventh paragraph the last line it says that 'They have succeeded '. We all know that they refers to the East Asia societies and the pbssage says that they have succeeded to have a increase in their standard of life. Then can you pick up the answer of that is that the only reason for them is because they have learned the idea from the western culture so that they can enhance their living or is there any other reason for that? .

12 S2 I think modernization.

13 S1 You think of the modernization?

14 S2 Yes.

15 S1 You mean the East Asian countries have learned somethingji'om the West.

16 S2 Westernization and modernization.

17 SI Okay.

18 S2 I think they've remained ... maintain their own culture. I think that is the main cause the East Asia success.

19 S1 Oh that sfine.

Soon a~er the discussion of the previous paragraph, the group went on to ?lSCUSS another segment. From table 4, the leader also applied the skill of clarification (Line 3) when one Inember gave the wrong answer (Line 2). Also when the member did not understand a particular part, she asked for clarification (Lines 6 and 9). If this student had not been working in a small group, I suppose she would not have asked the teacher to clarify but would have chosen to be silent.

After the group discussion, students were asked to write journal reflections to describe their involvement and their problems. I traced the response of this particular student. She shared that the leader could help the group to find the answers and help her when she did not understand. But she did not say what problems she had.


c. Discussion of Students' Reflection

1. Leaders' reflection

Here are some unedited extracts from the leaders:

"a way for me to raise questions, with planned thinking. "

"enhance the thinking skills upon a passage/paragraph. "

"can make me think more questions. "

2. Participants' reflection

Here are some unedited extracts from the participants:

" ... the leader can lead me how to answer the question. "

"(the leader) lead us to understand the passage, when we don't understand in some of the points, she would tly to use some questions to lead us. "

"the leader help me how to find the answer ... these made me understood more the paragraphs. "

''since the leader is the better English in our group, so it can help us and do it effectively. "

"the leader can help me to raise more questions and lead me to a more details answer. "

"the leader can explain to me when I don't understand. "

"the leader teach how to read it, so I become more understanding the passage.

One of the participants, has got some different feedback from the others.

'It is good that we have a leader to lead us, but I think we need to make sure everyone in the group speak up (share) their ideas and


answers. I think next time it may let the other members as a leader, as I can ensure everyone can make up (l question. "

In view of my students' reflection, I can see that they really appreciated the leader's work, and they found the leader could help them understand the passage. The last feedback even showed that this participant hoped everyone could be a group leader.

d. Teacher's Reflection

Direct observations of students learning the technique have revealed that they appreciate the method very willingly and quite readily. However, students seemed to need considerably more time to master these four strategies. The effect would be better if I could do some

. follow-up to check whether students can process the information accurately. When comparing the two forms of grouping, one with leader assigned and one without, the at-risk readers liked assigning a stronger student to be group leader as s/he could help them to process the information efficiently. Meanwhile the participants in the group can also be encouraged to learn actively to practise the four focussed skills.

D. The Interview

A small-scale interview was conducted at the last stage of the research. Four students were invited as volunteers to take part in the interview. In order to promote a free atmosphere for them to express their opinions freely. I adopted a semi-structured group interview format. Group discussion can stimulate students to express their points of view, and semi-structured interview can elicit as much information as possible. Nunan (1992) has illustrated the advantages of the semi -structured interview:

... it gives the interviewee a degree of power and control over the course of the interview. Secondly, it gives the interviewer a great deal of flexibility. Finally, and most profoundly, this form of interview gives one privileged access to other people's lives (p.150).

The topic of the discussion was how effective was reciprocal teaching


in helping them to comprehend text. The four open-ended questions were:

1. Please describe the four reading strategies that I modeled in the reading class.

2. When you apply these strategies, what sort of problems do you have?

3. Which approach, the conventional or the reciprocal teaching, do you prefer? Why?

4. How actively did you participate in reciprocal teaching?

Discussion

During the group interview, I got an OpInIOn from one of the interviewees that the method of reciprocal teaching was basically good, but it would be lllore effective if students could have more time to prepare the reading materials at home. This interviewee suggested that the teacher could allow them, for example, a week or so to do the reading at home and prepare the questions accordingly. When reviewing the quality of dialogue, I consider this to be very good advice in order to improve the quality of the students' discussion.

Another response was that they were worried that the group members could confuse them if all of them did not have the idea of what the text is about.

When we discussed the reading strategies of reciprocal teaching, they all knew what the four focused strategies were. What they could not achieve was confidence in fonnulating good questions. They all admitted that they had not tried to generate questions themselves in their past reading experience. All the questions are either set by the teacher or given after the reading passage. Therefore this new experience was difficult, in particular, when a student asked a question to which he or she even did not know the ansWer.


For the skill of predicting, they all stated that they had learnt it before. But it is worth noting that one of the interviewees expressed that predicting was not very essential because her prediction was not always the same as what came next in the passage and it could only misguide her comprehension. So this interviewee doubted why they still had to waste the effort to make predictions. This indicates that she did not fully understand the purpose of predicting. She was unaware that it could point the way "to what the writer will be saying and how the argument develops at various stages in the text itself" (McDonough and Shaw, 1993, p.III).

When moving to the point of the degree of participation, they all agreed that they participated a lot more actively when compared with the typical teaching approach. One interviewee even expressed that she did not learn reading skills only, but also her confidence of speaking in groups was enhanced. In a small group, she did not feel shy to express her own ideas. One interviewee reflected it was very interesting to have their group discussion audio-taped, as she could listen to her own performance and it could motivate her to raise questions.

In conclusion, through more students' involvement, students can integrate speaking skills, and the lesson can be leamer-centered instead of teacher-dominated.

Problems, Concerns, Issues that Affected My Action Research

The first problem which affected me was to identify a specific area to investigate. At the beginning, I tried to focus on listening skills but then I changed my investigation focus to reading skills. It really took me several months to settle on what I would do. To 'identity one specific area, I think, is not easy. So I would suggest that teachers should make sure they are interested in the area of investigation.

The second problem I encountered was the, heavy workload and the pressing timetable. After I decided what my action research would focus ~:m, taking action was another problem. Teaching four classes of


sixth and seventh fonns was definitely not a light load and I had to do a lot of marking on top of the teaching. During the process, I almost did not want to get started since I really struggled on how and where to start. I was so depressed that I had not made any progress. Once I started, I had to squeeze time to prepare the materials for the experiment as well as to tidy up the data and to write up the report. It was so exhausting that I took up the role of both the classroom teacher and researcher at the same time.

Third, data analysis was another problem. Even though our project team had a research assistant to help me transcribe students' group discussion, I did not have time to analyse or compare the different groups' perfonnance. Also I collected students' journals after each meeting, but I didn't have time to analyse them all. So some valuable data might have been missed and the analysis might not be comprehensive.

Finally, I had to face my students' criticisms. Innovation to some extent is time-consuming. Trying out an experiment in class is, in fact, occupies a lot of time. Students commented that they might not able to apply the skills in the public examination when time was pressing. One of the students in the group reflected in her two reflection journals that,

'1 am afraid I do not have enough time to do the reciprocal teaching during my test or examination. "

I could fully understand her anxiety. Luckily, my students understood my goal was to improve the teaching and learning the target language. Most importantly, throughout the process I found the interaction between students was closer than before. I also came to know how to help my students improve their reading strategies. I observed my students were very serious in their learning process too.

At this time, my project is almost finished. I can say I enjoyed the process very much, though it was a painstaking process. However, my knowledge in the research area of reading strategies was enriched and the method of investigation was consolidated.


Recommendations

My recommendations as a result of this project are as follows:

1. Questioning techniques should be reinforced

Questioning techniques are important. In the process, I found I did not have time to go through the details of questioning techniques. I just provided students a chance to try out questioning in groups. In fact, "students who are exposed only to factual questions will probably not be able to transfer their skill to the study of other passages. The teacher has to teach them how to deduce logical relationships, to understand the significance of connectives and to use contextual clues to arrive at the meaning of unfamiliar words"(Cheng, 1982, p.297).

According to Cheng (1982), expository and argumentative prose have the following four types of questions:

1. Logical questions - the aim is to get the students to see the relationship between different parts of the passage;

2. Inference questions - to make students read between the lines;

3. Judgment questions - to stimulate students to offer their opinions; and

4. Response questions - to find out the students' personal feelings. (p. 297)

These types of questions should be explained to students III the modeling stage.

2. Variety of reading materials

In this research, I mainly focused on expository materials. I did not extend the reading assignments to the other fonns of communications in Section E as stated in the syllabus. However, for my group of students, I think expository texts are still very urgent.


3. Follow-up work should be reinforced

In view of the students' reflection and the reciprocal dialogue, they have only just acquired the focussed skills but have not mastered them well. That is why there were students who were still afraid that they did not have confidence to apply them in the examination. Therefore, more lessons should be provided to master the skills as well as for audio taping the students' work and evaluating their performance again.

4. Extensive reading on the critics of reciprocal teaching

Cherryholmes (1999) states that:

Reciprocal teaching does not teach interpretation or criticism. Its limited, ... goals do not include 'judicious evaluation' or 'variant readings'. Because reciprocal teaching portrays a text with only one message, it fails to help students 'see a thing clearly and truly in order to judge it fairly' (p.65).

The article goes on to suggest that the critical educator should revise reciprocal teaching "by adding interpretation and criticism to the list of clarifying, summanzmg, questioning, and prediction" (Cherryholmes, 1999, p.67). It is because this research was done in a short period of time. The teacher should read extensively on what the pros and cons of the Inethod of reciprocal teaching are if it is going to be adopted in other classes in the future and make modification to suit the needs of the target learners where necessary.

Conclusions

Teachers may find that doing action research takes a lot of time. Throughout the process I met some teachers who turned down participation in the project. They were frustrated because of their heavy workload. The benefits, however, far outweigh the drawbacks. In the long run, improving the English proficiency of the teachers is important, but at the same time, it is undeniable that pedagogy should not be neglected.

Developing ReCiprocal Teaching in a Reading Class 165

In fact, action research in EL T in secondary schools in Hong Kong is very rare and a lot still needs to be done .. , Here I would like to conclude my paper by using the words of Chan (1996),

Perhaps we do not need to be reminded that we are living in very demanding times, in which things are changing very fast and to make sense of and keep pace with such rapid changes we need to collaborate with fellow practitioners, adopting an openness of attitude ... (p.27)

All school-teachers are working in a tough time nowadays in Hong Kong. What teachers can do is try to open our eyes to observe and open our ears to listen to the problems and needs of our students in learning English. Perhaps, we can look for fellow teachers who are willing to work collaboratively to develop our teaching profession.

I enjoyed doing this action research very much as it really played a major role in helping to raise my awareness of how to help my students systematically. It also stimulated me to go on to enrich my pedagogic knowledge of English language teaching and in developing systematic ways to investigate and address problems. Most importantly, it is flexible enough to allow me to change the focus of my investigation.

To sum up, I sincerely look forward to seeing more teachers in primary and secondary levels start their classroom-based research either individually or collaboratively with fellow teachers or researchers outside school. The EL T profession would then be enhanced.

Acknowledgements

A thousand thanks should be given to our project leader, Dr. Gertrude Tinker Sachs, Department of English, City University of Hong Kong, who continuously provided me with invaluable insights and advice on the project during these two years. And sincere thanks should also given to the project Research Assistant, Ms. Angel Lau, since the report could not be finished in such a short period of time without her kind assistance particularly on the transcription of my audio-taped lessons and library search. Most importantly,


thanks should be given to all my students (1998-2000 and 1999-2001) who took part in the project voluntarily.

Last but not least, I have to give my sincere gratitude to Mr. Simon Wong, the Dean of the School of Continuing Education, and my team supervisor, Ms. Amelia Lee, the Senior Coordinator of the Academic Programme Division, who fully supported my participation in this project as well as helped to process the application for participation in the project, and provided me with invaluable advice on participation in a research project outside the School.

References

Alastair, A. (1991). Teachers' and students' reflections on reading and reading strategies. Perspectives: Working Papers of the Department of English, 3(4),37-51. Hong Kong: City Polytechnic of Hong Kong.

Chan, Y.H. (1996). Action research as professional development for ELT practitioners. HKPU Working Papers in ELT & Applied Linguistics, 2(1),17-28. Hong Kong: Hong Kong Polytechnic University.

Cheng, W. (1982). The reading skills. Language and Education: Selected papers from the 1979 Symposium on Language and Education in Hong Kong, 287-298. Hong Kong: Educational Corrunittee, Symposium on Language and Education in Hong Kong.

Cherryholmes, C. H. (1999). Reading pragmatism. New York: Teachers College Press.

Durkin, D. (1978-79). What classroom observations reveal about reading comprehension instruction. Reading Research Quarterly, 14(4),481-533.

Helfeldt, T.P. and Henk, W.A. (1990). Reciprocal question-answer relationships: an instructional technique for at-risk readers. Journal of Reading, 33(7), 509-514.


Hong Kong Examinations Authority (2000). Hong Kong Advanced Level Examination Regulations and Syllabuses 2000. Hong Kong: Printing Department.

Hong Kong Examinations Authority (1999). Hong Kong Adv~n~ed Level Examination Report 1999. Hong Kong: Pnntmg Department.

Kohonen, V. (1992). Experiential language learning: Second language learning as cooperative learner education. In D. Nunan, (Ed.), Collaborative language learning and teaching, (pp.14-39). Cambridge: Cambridge Language Teaching Library, Cambridge University Press.

McDonnough, J. and Shaw, C. (1993). Materials and methods in ELT: A teacher s guide. Oxford: BlackwelL

McNiff, J., Lomax, P. and Whitehead, J. (1996). You and your action research project. Bournemouth: Hyde Publications.

Nunan, D. (1991). Language teaching methodology: A textbook for teachers. UK: Prentice Hall International Ltd.

Nunan, D. (1992). Research methods in language learning. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Palincsar, A.S. and Brown, A.L. (1984). Reciprocal teaching of comprehension-fosteri ng and comprehension -monitoring activities. Cognition and Instruction, 1(2), 117-175.

Richards, J.C. and Lockhart, C. (1994). Reflective teaching in second language classrooms. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Richgels, D. J. and Hansen, R. (1984). Gloss: Helping students apply both skills and strategies in reading content texts. Journal of Reading, 27(4),312-317.


Appendix 1

The following is the excerpt from the Syllabus of the Use of English:

Section C Reading and Language Systems (p.482-483)

Reading: Tests the ability of candidates to achieve an in-depth understanding of an expository text. Candidates will not be asked to locate mere factual details, but:

• to identify central ideas, the purposes and assumptions of the writer as revealed in the text, and

• to differentiate between what is more or less important and more or less relevant in terms of those purposes.

Candidates will also be tested on their ability, for example,

• to recognise the limiting effects of qualifications and exceptions, to relate cause to effect and evidence to conclusions.

• Where questions focus on particular words or phrases, their interpretation will depend upon the context of the passage.

Language Systems: Tests the extent to which the systems of the English language have been internalised by the candidates:

• the lexicon • the morphology • the syntactic relationships within and among phrases and clauses,

and • the structural relationships among sentences within paragraphs and in

discourse

Section E Practical Skills for Work and Study (p.483-485)

The skills tested are loosely categorised under the following headings:

Study Skills and Reasoning Skills: These items require the candidate to exercise judgment and to demonstrate the ability to organise information. In relation to a given task or context, the candidate will be asked to determine what information is important, or relevant. The candidate may be required to:

• differentiate between fact and opinion, • provide evidence for a particular conclusion, • draw conclusions from given evidence, • categorise and classify information,


• determine cause or effect, • define terms, • formulate hypotheses for investigation, and • determine the nature of communication problems to be solved.

Reading Skills: the reading skills tested will include the ability to match the reading technique to the task. Items may require:

• rapid scanning to locate information, • skimming so that the gist of a passage is understood, and • reading for detailed information.

The information sought will relate not only to facts presented and their implications, but may include identifying:

• the purposes, feelings and attitudes of the writer, • the assumptions made by the writer, and • inferences or predictions which might be made on the basis of what is

written.

Test Materials:

... The materials will relate to a particular theme (for example, television, transport, travel) and may contain a variety of styles, including transcriptions of a dialogue and ranging in content from factual information to the expression of attitudes, opinions and beliefs for a variety of communicative purposes, e.g., instruction, entertainment or persuasion. Information may also be presented graphically (in tables, histograms, flow charts, graphs, pictures, etc.) (p.484)

Adopted from Hong Kong Examination Authority (2000). Hong Kong Advanced Level Examination Regulations and Syllabuses 2000. Hong Kong: Printing Department.

Promoting Active ReadingNancy Chan

Introduction

The focus of this action research project is on active reading in narratives through reader-response theory and story grammar activities. In my 7-month project, students had to identify story elements of a narrative and share their responses with others in class. I participated in the project with the aim of enhancing my professional growth in English language teaching, especially in the area of reading with professional advice fr0111 the research teaI11. I also hoped that students could learn to read with less control from me and would gradually become independent readers in the future.

Background

I have been teaching in 4 different lower-banding secondary schools. There are some common characteristics that can be found among them. Most of the students have very weak English language proficiency. Their motivation to read is comparatively low and they are too frightened to pick up a book and read on their own. They also consider it a waste of time to consult a dictionary if they encounter lots of new vocabulary in reading stories. In addition, they are usually told that there is only ONE interpretation in understanding a story. They are afraid to make mistakes and be mocked in class. During the reading lessons, they are often asked factual questions rather than personal response questions and teachers usually explain everything in Cantonese. There is no interaction, no sharing and no fun at all.


Thus, reading to students is associated with pam, dissatisfaction, failure and passiveness.

My current school is one of the Chinese Medium of Instruction (CMI) schools and has an intake of students with low English proficiency. Students have a passive attitude towards English learning. Junior forms in particular rely heavily on teachers' explanations in Cantonese. They have difficulty in understanding lessons taught in English. Reading is still traditionally taught in the sense that students are rarely involved in interactive activities and experience sharing.

An understanding of the teachers' approach in the teaching of reading in the current school and the previous schools makes me reflect on why students have a fear for reading. They might have few ideas of how to read and where to begin. To' me, what students need to be taught most is some strategies plus they need to be provided with a reading environment where they experience ample opportunities to express themselves through tasks which do not simply require straight-forward answers.

Literature Review

In order to promote active reading in narratives, I applied reader-response theory and story grammar framework in my action research.

Story Grammar

According to Mandler & Johnson (1977), Rumelhart (1975), and Stein & Glenn (1979), well-formed stories have structures that include a setting (time, place and characters), a theme (an important message or moral that runs through the story), plot episodes (events in which the main character attempts to attain the goal to solve the problem), and a resolution (the attainment of the goal or solution of the problem. and the ending). The use of story frames and story grammar concepts enables students to comprehend a story easily (Cudd & Roberts, 1987). Marshall (1983) also beliyves that story grammar is a reasonable, valuable tool for teachers in evaluating students' comprehension of stories.

Promoting Active Reading 173

Reader-response Theory

Goodman (1985) and Spiro (1980) view the process of reading as the construction of meaning between the interaction of the text and the reader. Rosenblatt (1994) advocates a transactional theory of reading:

Every reading act is an event, or a transaction involving a particular reader and a particular pattern of signs, a text, and occurring at a particular time in a particular context. Instead of two fixed entities acting on one another, the reader and the text are two aspects of a total dynamic situation. The "meaning" does not reside ready-made "in" the text or "in" the reader but happens or comes into being during the transaction between reader and text (p.I063).

Hirvela (1996) asserts the significance of the reader-response theory in the teaching of literature and comprehension. Reading becomes a productive activity in which readers respond to authorial intention and meaning within the text as a result of their reader-text transaction. In essence, reader-response theory elnphasizes the growth of the individual reader as an active reflective maker of meaning and allows creativity and critical thinking to take place in an atmosphere where readers are free from threats and correct answers (Ali, 1994).

My Action Research

1. Objective

This action research project aimed to help students build up their confidence to read independently or foster a habit of independent reading. In doing so, students might feel confident to read more on their own and would gradually become lifelong readers.

2. Target Students

My target students were 40 students from F.2A, which is considered to be the best of all F.2 classes in terms of their overall internal academic performance and motivation to learn. In my school, all


subjects except English are primarily taught in Chinese. The English proficiency of these students was generally low. Only half of them were able to understand the lessons in English. Most of them were unwilling to speak English in class and some did not have any interest in learning English.

3. Length of Study

There were 17 reading workshops conducted across 7 months. A total of 31 lessons were allocated, each lasting 30-35 minutes. The details are described in Table 1.

Table 1 Overview of Lessons

Title Date of Remarks Meeting

The Horrible Hat 15/10/99 Students had 20 minutes to write (Pretest) their responses in class

The Most 1911 0/99 Big book (3Ls) Wonderful One in 2011 0/99 "Do you like the characters in the World the story?"

There's a Ghost in 27110/99 Book with illustrations (4Ls) my House 2911 0/99 "If you were Sam or Cathy,

would you like to have 'Boo' as your friend?"

Tarzan 16111/99 Assigned class reader (4Ls) 19/11199 "If you were Tarzan, would you

prefer to go back to the human family or stay in the jungle with the gorilla family?"

Sunnyvista City 24/11/99 EERS reader (7Ls) 25/11199 "If you were Dan, would you 29/11199 prefer to go back to England or 30/11/99 stay in the Sunnyvista City?"


Selected English 15/2/00 Different stories chosen Extensive Reading 16/2/00 by students (4 Ls ) Scheme (EERS) Free response Readers

The Horrible Hat 15/3/00 2-page excerpt (5Ls) (Post-test/ Revisit) 7/4/00 Free response

10/4/00 Follow-up activities (see Appendix 1)

5 Traditional 5/5/00 Every member of any 2 groups Stories read the same story (2Ls)

Free response

10 Traditional 25/5/00 Each member of the group reads Stories a different story (2Ls)

Free response

Key: Ls = number of lessons for the given topic

4. Methodology

Students were asked to fin out a questionnaire on their self-perceptions as readers and their opinions of the teacher's approach to reading before and after the training (see Appendix 2). The results of these questionnaires would be compared and analysed in section 5.

Reading workshops were held regularly, usually twice a cycle if possible. A typical reading workshop consisted of the following:

Story-telling / Story Sharing

Teacher read aloud the story to the whole class in 20-25 minutes; demonstrating to students how to apply story grammar to help them better understand the story. This would be done through questioning and think-aloud activities.

Recap

Teacher asked students to identify story elements to test their understanding of the story (see Appendix 3).


pI Response

In the first 10 reading workshops, students were assigned a task to write their 1 st responses with prompts (see Remarks in Table 1). In the last 7 reading workshops, students wrote their 1 st responses or anything they found interesting with reference to reader response prompts (see Appendix 4).

i) Pronunciation - Teacher walked around to help those students to pronounce words with which they had problems.

ii) Discussion - Students got in groups to talk about their responses with the aid of some language tip s (see Appendix 5).

iii) Group Sharing / Reporting - Students of each group took turns to report back in class.

2"d Response

Students wrote the 2nd responses at home with the help of a checklist (see Appendix 6) and submitted them to the teacher. The responses would be marked and kept in the students' reading portfolios. At the end of each reading workshop, the teacher would write down what she observed in her reflective journal.

Follow-up

Activities would be done in class if time permitted.

5. Results and Discussion

Students 'Reading Portfolios

Based on students' English mid-year exam scores of that year and their participation in the reading workshops, 9 samples representing 3 different groups of English standard with '1\ indicating above average, 'B' average and 'C' below average respectively were chosen for analysis (see Appendix 7, Students A-C).

As seen from the examples given, before the training, most students


simply copied out from the story or even did not attempt to answer. But after the training, they responded differe~t1y. They had more to write.

'1\ students could improve more than 'B' and 'C' students in terms of content and language accuracy. The former were able to substantiate their responses with examples from the story.

The reading performance of the group members in 'P\, 'B' or 'C' could vary slightly or even greatly, depending on the factors of motivation, English proficiency and persistence of their learning.

Generally speaking, all students had shown a slight or great improvement in their personal responses to reading throughout the 7 -month training.

Findings of Questionnaires (see Appendix 8)

i) Students' Self-perceptions as Readers

The aim of the first part of the questionnaires was to find out how students perceived themselves as readers. The percentage in brackets indicated an increase or decrease in that statement before and after training. Some interesting findings are highlighted as follows:

• More students like reading stories (+8.30/0).

• Fewer students need others to help with reading (-16.9%).

• More students find reading enjoyable (+ 19%).

• Fewer students find reading difficult (-11.4%).

• Fewer students do not feel good/confident in reading (- 4.4%).

• Fewer students sound outevery word when reading (-19.6%).

• Fewer students understand every word when reading (- 27%).

• BUT the same number of students understand the overall meaning when reading (73%).

• Fewer students find vocabulary the greatest problem in reading (-3.1%).


• Fewer students check difficult words in dictionary (-20%).

• Fewer students think that consulting a dictionary helps reading (-10.8%).

• More students tell others what they have written (+8.1 %).

The above analysis shows that students tended to rely less on the dictionary and others when they read. Their self-perceptions as readers improved over the training period.

ii) Students' Opinions of the Teacher's Approach to Reading

The aim of the second part of the questionnaires was to find out how students felt about their teacher's approach to reading. The percentage showed an increase or decrease in that statement before and after training. Some of the findings are listed below:

• Teacher shows how to read (+41.7%)

• Teacher explains line by line (-64.90/0)

• Teacher asks less questions (-36.8%)

• Students can talk more about what they have read in reading lessons (+9.3%)

• Teacher lets students talk more about how they feel about the story (+49.70/0)

• More students like the way their teacher teaches how to read stories (+28.90/0)

The above statistics reflect that students can enjoy reading if their teachers showed them how to read and gave them a chance to share among themselves in class.

Reflective Journal

The reflective journal documented some changes in my teaching strategies in order to cater to the needs of students. For example,

The reading workshops were first held in the· spacious English Corner where students could sit more comfortably in a semi-circle and talked freely after lunch. However,


students complained about using the English Corner as they were not used to sitting on stools and do?ed off easily after lunch. Then the time and the venue of the reading workshops were changed. Instead, they had reading in the first and second lessons and sat facing one another in their classroom to share their responses, which made it more informal for interaction.

During their sharing, it was also found that they could not carry on their conversations in Englishfluently due to their weak English language foundation. A list of language tips were thus provided for them to enhance their confidence to proceed (see Appendix 5). Besides, more encouragement, support and improvement awards were given to sustain their interest in reading.

Teaching is dynamic and flexible. It involves changes over time. The changes that have taken place in my reading classroom are crucial to making the project more successful. It is inevitable that I will meet with frustrations and disappointment in some aspects. However, my persistence in trying out new strategies in my teaching is similar to that of students in their learning. I remind myself that I should not give up my hope and my belief in students who will definitely internalize the skills and strategies one day when they are given sufficient exposure to them.

6. Problems and Limitations

In spite of the gains of the project, I had to face the following problems and limitations:

Time Constraint

More make-up classes were arranged to help students catch up with the syllabus so that they could manage their tests and exams.

Time-consuming

Lots of preparation including the selection of appropriate reading materials were done before reading workshops. It also consumed


much of my time in marking students' reading portfolios and writing in a reflective journal after reading workshops.

Choice of Texts

The reading materials chosen might not be appealing to students and therefore students might lose their interest in participating actively in class. It is important to select really interesting materials for students.

Unfavourable Class Size and Classroom Setting

It was difficult to meet the needs of 40 students with differing abilities in English. Nor could all of them be invited to share their 1 st responses in class at one time.

Weak Vocabulary and Pronunciation Problems

Students were hindered in expressing themselves freely and confidently when they did not have sufficient vocabulary. They also mispronounced words.

Length of Training / Persistence of Training

Due to the constraints of tests, exams and syllabuses, the training could not be done regularly in class. This means that the effect of the training might not persist long over time. It take.s time for students to internalize the reading strategies before they are able to use them.

Hong Kong Students' Learning Styles

Most students, including a few brighter ones in my class, were reluctant to talk in English among themselves despite language tips given. To some extent, this is a true picture of Hong Kong students who tend to be reluctant to speak in English.

7. Conclusion

Reader-response theory and story grammar do have a pOSItIve influence on students of differing abilities in their performance of


reading stories. The extent of the effect depends very much on students' motivation to learn, their readiness t9 try out the strategies and apply them to their daily learning with persistence, and their English proficiency. The highly motivated students with good English proficiency tend to perform better than their counterparts.

Recommendations for Carrying out AR Work in Schools in Hong Kong

The following need to be considered when carrying out action research projects in schools in Hong Kong:

To Have Time off

It sounds feasible to employ substitute teachers to take up part of our teaching workload. Then we can feel more relieved of worry and pressure of our work, and concentrate on our research. In fact, we need more space to explore our unlimited potential in ELT.

To Invite Keen Teachers to Join Collaborative AR Teams

To reduce our workload from materials collection and render mutual support to one another, it is wonderful to gather interested teachers from different secondary schools together and encourage them to join the AR teams under the supervision and guidance of some university staff.

To Hold After-school Workshops with the Help of University Support Teams

It is not always practicable to integrate action research projects into our daily teaching. What we are doing may be less appealing to others. Perhaps holding after-school workshops with the help of university support teams looks more feasible. The teacher of the school will work together with one or two of the professionals from outside on an agreed upon experiment and conduct workshops. This might help the teacher to become more involved and experience professional growth.


Reflections

Despite increased workload, frustration, failure and despair during the try-outs, I deeply believe that I have had more gains than losses in this AR project. AR provides me with a chance to think about my classroom teaching constantly and helps me improve the unfavourable learning environment. It helps me strive for further improvement in ELT, especially in reading. It also sets a path leading to my future research in reading.

Acknowledgements

Many thanks to Dr. Gertrude Tinker Sachs and Ms. Sandy Shum for their professional advice and support in developing this action research project.

References

Ali, S. (1994). The reader-response approach: An altenlative for teaching literature in a second language. Journal of Reading, 37 (4),288-298.

Cudd, E.T. & Roberts, L.L. (1987). Using story frames to develop reading comprehension in a 1 st grade classroom. The Reading Teaching, 41 (1), 74-79.

Goodman, K. (1985). Transactional psycholinguistic model. In H. Singer & R. Ruddell (Eds.), Theoretical models and processes of reading (3 rd Ed.) (pp. 813-840). Newark, DE: International Reading Association.

Hirvela, A. (1996). Reader-response theory and ELT. ELT Journal, 50 (2),127-134.

Lapp, D. & Flood, J. (1992). Teaching reading to every child. New York: Macmillan.

Mandler, J.M. & Johnson, N.S. (1977). Remembrance of things


parsed: Story structure and recall. Cognitive Psychology, 9, 111-151.

Marshall, N. (1983). Using story grammar to assess reading comprehension. The Reading Teacher, 36 (7),616-620.

Rosenblatt, L. M. (1994). The transaction theory of reading and writing. In R. B. Ruddell, M., M. P. Ruddell & H. Singer (Eds.), Theoretical models and processes of reading (4th Ed.) (pp.1058-1092). Newark, DE: IRA.

Rumelhart, D. (1975). Notes on a schema for stories. In D. Bobrow & A. Collins (Eds.), Representation and Understanding: Studies in Cognitive Science (pp. 211-236). New York: Academic Press, Inc.

Spiro, R.J. (1980). Constructive processes in prose comprehension. In R.J. Spiro, B.C. Bruch, & W.E Brewer (Eds.), Theoretical issues in prose comprehension (pp. 245-278). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Stein, N.L. & Glenn, C.G. (1979). An analysis of story comprehension in elementary school children. In R. O. Freedle & Norwood (Eds.), New directions in discourse processing (pp. 53-120). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.


Appendix 1

F.2 Reading Workshop - "Horrible Hat"

1. Use your imagination to create interesting dialogues between Mrs. Bear and Little Bear before and after the Parents' Day.

2. Imagine you were Little Bear. Write a letter to Mrs. Bear, your mother, expressing why you dislike/ hate her with reference to the incidents that made you lose face / feel embarrassed in front of others.

3. Suppose you were one of the counselors who helped with family problems. Write a letter to Mrs. Bear and Little Bear respectively, advising them on how to improve their relationship.

4. English Week is approaching. Suppose you were one of the committee members, organizing activities for schoolmates to participate. The English Panel has asked you to design an inter-class essay competition. You consider retelling the story in 4-5 comic strips, leaving the last one open-ended.

5. Design two character mobiles for both Mrs. Bear and Little Bear with examples to support your view.


Appendix 2

Students' Questionnaires

This questionnaire is designed to find out how you perceive yourselves as readers and what you think about your teacher"s approach to reading. Please answer ALL questions. Your answers will be kept confidential. Thank you.

Name: _________ ( Group: ___ _ Class: __________ _ Age: __ _ Sex: _____ _

A. Students' Self-perceptions as Readers

Please read the following statements very carefully and then indicate the extent to which you agree with each statement by circling the number.

5 strongly agree 4 agree 3 uncertain 2 disagree 1 strongly disagree

l. I like reading stories 5 4 3 2 1 2. I am a good reader 5 4 3 2 1 3. I can read by myself 5 4 3 2 I 4. I read with the help of others 5 4 3 2 1 5. I read frequently 5 4 3 2 1 6. Reading stories is easy 5 4 3 2 I 7. Reading stories is enjoyable 5 4 3 2 1 8. Reading is difficult 5 4 3 2 9. When I read, I feel good! confident 5 4 3 2 10. When I read, I do not feel good! confident 5 4" 3 2 II. When I read, I sound out every single word 5 4 3 2 12. When I read, I understand every single word 5 4 3 2 13. When I read, I understand the overall 5 4 3 2

meaning of the text

i r


14. When I read, I become more aware of the 5 4 3 2 1 writer's tone and the motive for writing

15. When I read, I do not pay attention to the 5 4 3 2 writer's tone and the motive for writing

16. Vocabulary is my greatest problem in reading 5 4 3 2 17. I spend a lot of time checking the difficult 5 4 3 2

words in a dictionary 18. I can read better after consulting a dictionary 5 4 3 2 19. I can tell others about what I have read 5 4 3 2 20. I can tell others about what I have written 5 4 3 2 1 21. I like to share my reading with others 5 4 3 2 1 22. I like to share my writing with others 5 4 3 2 1

B. Students' Opinions of the Teacher's Approach to Reading Listed below are statements about your opinions of the teacher's approach to teaching reading. Please read them very carefully and indicate the extent to which you agree with each statement by circling the number.

1. 2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

7. 8.

9.

5 strongly agree 4 agree 3 uncertain 2 disagree 1 strongly disagree

My teacher shows me how to read 5 My teacher explains the story line by line 5 mainly in Cantonese My teacher reads aloud. the story and asks 5 me questions I can talk about what we have read in the 5 reading lessons When my teacher finishes the story, I will 5 do a book report When my . teacher finishes the story, s/he 5 will let me talk about how I feel in class My teacher enjoys reading stories 5 I like the way my teacher teaches me how 5 to read I enjoy reading lessons 5

4 3 2 4 3 2

4 3 2

4 3 2

4 3 2

4 3 2

4 3 2 4 3 2

4 3 2


Appendix 3

Worksheet - "A Story Web"

Book Title: _____________ Book Ref. No.: ____ Report No.: ___ _

PROBLEM(S)

/

happened in the end?

Name: ____________ (

Class: _______ No.: ______ _


Appendix 4

Reader Response Prompts

1. Prediction a) What do you expect will happen next in the story? Why? b) What do you think will happen towards the end of the story?

Why?

2. Characterization a) If you were (one of the characters of the story),

what would you do? Why? b) Do you like thecharacter/s of the story? Which one/s? Why? c) Who do you like/ dislike most? Why? d) Compare the characters to yourself, family, friends, etc.

3. Ending a) What do you think of the ending? Are you convinced to accept

it? Why? b) Do you want to change the ending? Why? How?

4. Plot a) Which part of the story do you like/ dislike most? Why? b) Which is your favourite/ the least interesting part of the story?

Why? c) Do you like the way the events are put together in the story?

Why?

5. Word Associations a) What word/ image/ phrase/ idea do you think is most

important in the story? b) What is the most important word/ phrase in the story? c) What is the most difficult word/ part in the story?

6. Connections and Other Associations a) Does the title fit the story? Why? b) Do you like what you read? Why? c) Do you learn anything from the story? What? Why? d) Is the story related to your life experience? If so, what is it?


e) Does the story/event/character make you think of anything else in the past? If so, what is it? .

f) What is your first reaction or response to the story? g) What feelings do you have about what you read? h) How have your feelings about the story changed from

beginning to end? i) Would you recommend this book to others? Why? j) Describe a scene from your book. What would you have done

if you had been there? k) Is the book too long or too short? Why? How can this be

improved?

{Adapted from Lapp, D. & Flood, J. (1992). Teaching reading to every child (pp.147-148). New York: Macmillan.}


Appendix 5

Reading Workshop for Sharing Stories

<Language Tips>

1. Introducing the story "The title of my story is ... " "The story I read is entitled ... "

2. Summarizing the story based on the Basic StOIJ' Frame/ Story Web This story happened in __ in ________ had a problem. The problem started when ______________ _ After that, ___________________ _ Next, ______________________ _ Then, ______________________ _ Afterwards, ____________________ _ The problem was finally solved when. __________ _ Intheend, ____________________ _

3. Giving your 1st response/ opinion with reference to "Reader Response Prompts" "I think that ... " "In my opinion, ... " "Personally, 1 feel that. .. "

4. Asking others for ideas, feelings and reactions


5. Closing/ Concluding "Thanks for sharing your interesting/wonderful/exciting story with

me." "Thanks for your sharing. Your story is great/ wonderful!

interesting/ exciting." "I really love your story. Thanks for sharing it with me."


Appendix 6

General Checklist

Think about the following questions very carefully before and after editing/revising your first response to the story:

1. Did you add ideas of your own?

2. Did you try to create something very interesting, exciting or surprising?

3. Did you use any new words and phrases to make your writing interesting?

4. Did you try to put your ideas in the form of a poem, mind map, drawing, etc.?

5. Did you share your work with your classmates, schoolmates or family members?

6. Did you invite your classmates, schoolmates or family members to comment on it?

7. Did you reread your work?

8. Did you check for punctuation?

9. Did you check for spellings?

10. Did you check for grammar, e.g. tenses, pronouns, articles, etc.?


Appendix 7

Students' Samples - pre-training on 1511 0/99 and post-training (1 st

responses and 2nd responses) on 15/3/00 & 7/4/00

Student A

Et.4 i"?V 7.... I'oro.b' Y":;! aJ. L7-£t{e. Bears 5cft.,.,{. ih~ Sk. pic-/<i,.".oi:..u.p ~t

Little fSc.ar 's r17.otlt.er re.v1J 60 se..t ol-f... I~ L l-t.t:/e.

Sea'?"' '5 n. otlv..,- .J 0 -{:..o sc.h..oct . IrL QA,o-fh f:r roc"" , o(J...

B otfb~ .. ~B(o.r ~ sA-w,"'4, CI.<\. . . e.:~pe6,..e-,.f. -to so1l1....e rMt:/ I~e.. ~s~ .

w/t~ }vn'''/iby ~ 'Ylk L"t/:/€.- ~ ~. [h.e.- L-;tf.lef!.o.r-.

~-tI--: ~~neJ.. CYI&n. 0ttle f!> etv- ~ AiS trLot:ii.-r J-;-U/~

o..rt~ Z.t.- -t.~ rJ.J ~ 7hz, Beev Wad.c~ ~ /, .... t.

A

~1 Drr(L~: ).-.1A-i.

-


Student B

it,." bj ~ ~ .ti.1h~.

J. ~(, .~at- ~4-~~ ~~.

It /ttY5. VtIt'Y /I ~ ~ )CA. .I,ot ,ft Iter $ lit.

t .q dve .6rt. -fAt IJIl idllt't.. ft,.y clt4tL. Jrer/~·J.! otd! f,t/,ot ~!.

/'


~ . i'~ :r. 11t;ll~ f~t L,'lf{t Eea.r ~1 ~vt't/ {pull pe Jej In.. -I/ztUL

v/', .J reA-jed .e-J. ·Q;&.-f-fJ J{q! ,:rktWw' L,'Hlt fe&l.r·ls~ {cveP

. ~1~ .-~"'"M./~ "$!J- ;.((1£JzI+ j;,bf }"L~' O"JY{,~Kflt I .. e"l,

J~fhtt) :J-5# d,ffic-<lLf Iv/~J ilt fJ,~ ~.fory? 1. J. L e<Jr1t.-.-Ft';-C?

15 t:tJio/- ka. vt 11t"-lty power 1 Co.-vt.. ~ l-YtYh.·tlJ .

rust.ct

~5§J , {k ~. ~ 1,:-/Lt. I i5 {jf, 1ht froyy It (.(). t<.<t 'fh;sfI

('(rt'--- /',

fi'ry~ ~ w;/t L;HL(. ~ fetJr'j ~,tflt.eY tJ.Kd. IL's ILtd ..

1- ~ d,n/I. .... / rlrJ bo.~, Bet~u.5' flte ptcfaYs ~ verl b().lk..£ltt.d /,

(f ~r {ltrt 'n~t Sa..- '~AtA-t ($ +lu-l.i<V .. Jrt. fAt 8I,ry 1- Leg.ftt, ~ ~---------------- ..

,ftt.M;( is e-x f(-t1·'Z;sn. ~ illY ~g/l.! .. 1·~:.I {,ke. -7 ... -/ ..-

L;H[e btM' )1lti5-1 tflb~t:a~. At,i l"tt·/til>t J,..,It.N. Stt,t..ot;f{o

4:-- liHIe, Ue.tll' '~1!1f' j,ul &r;!Ef ..•... a. hig.. hal. ·h.A..f

·-1~t •• r


Student C

~-----

:~. 9l 1J ~ ENOr:.AVOUR

~ tk ~1Z.h [e.w."..s -r (-;i:e -lire.. <~'">

V'1».&U-k ~e. J,.... -to J-e5CII..e..J..e-.~

l

i t

I _______ _ ______________ L ___ _

Appendix 8

Questionnaire Findings

A. Students' Self-perceptions as Readers

Statements Agree Pre Post

1. I like reading stories 10 25% 13

2. I am a good reader 6 15% 3

3. I can read by myself 13 32.5% II

4. I read with the help of others 17 42.5% 10

5. I read frequently 4 10% 4

6. Reading stories is easy 7 17.5% 5

7. Reading stories is enjoyable 16 40% 23

8. Reading is difficult 22 55% 17

9. When I read, I feel good! 12 30% 8 confident 10. When J read, I do not feel 12 30% 10 good! confident 11. When I read, I sound out 14 35% 6 every single word 12. When I read, I understand 19 47.5% 8 every single word 13. When I read, I understand 29 72.5% 29 the overall meaning of the text 14. When I read, I become more 5 12.5% 12 aware of the writer's tone and the motive for writing 15. When J read, I do not pay - 20 50% 16 attention to the writer's tone and the motive for writing 16. Vocabulary is my greatest 32 80% 30 problem to reading 17. I spend a lot of time 31 77.5% 23 checking the difficult words in a dictionary


Disagree Pre Post

33.3% 15 37.5% 11 28.2%

7.7% 22 55% 21 53.8%

28.2% 14 35% 13 33.3%

25.6% 9 22.5% 15 38.5%

10.3% 28 70% 27 69.2%

12.8% 24 60% 20 51.3%

59% II 27.)% 6 15.4%

43.6% 7 17.5% 8 20.5%

25.6% 14 35% II 28.2%

25.6% 14 35% 10 25.6%

15.4% 17 42.5% 29 74.4%

20.5% 15 37.5% 20 51.3%

74.4% 4 10% 0 0%

30.8% 18 45% 13 33.3%

41% 9 22.5% 10 25.6%

76.9% 2 5% 0 0%

57.5% 3 7.5% 10 25.6%


18. I can read better after 32 80% 27 69.2% 3 7.5% consulting a dictionary 19. I can tell others about what I 15 37.5% 11 28.2% 8 20% have read 20. I can tell others about what I 6 15% 9 23.1% 18 45% have written 21. I like to share my reading 9 22.2% 8 20.5% 16 40% with others 22. I like to share my writing to 9 22.5% 4 10.3% 19 47.5% others

B. Students' Opinions of the Teacher's Approach to Reading

Statements Agree Disagree Pre Post Pre

1. My teacher shows me how to 17 42.5% 32 84.2% 17 42.5% read 2. My teacher explains the story 14 70% 2 5.1% 20 50% line by line mainly in Cantonese 3. My teacher reads aloud the 26 65% II 28.2% 8 20% story and asks me questions 4. I can talk about what we have 7 17.5% 11 26.8% 19 47.5% read in the reading lessons 5. When my teacher finishes the 28 70% 27 69.2% 6 15% story, I will do a book report 6. When my teacher finishes the 15 37.5% 34 87.2% 19 47.5% story, slhe will let me talk about how I feel in class 7. My teacher enjoys reading 14 37.5% 22 56.4% 11 27.5%. stories 8. I like the way my teacher II 27.5% 22 56.4% 10 25% teaches me how to read 9. I enjoy reading lessons 14 35% 13 33.3% 14 35%

4

12

13

13

15

Post 1

31

9

13

3

1

1

4

10

10.3%

30.8%

33.3%

33.3%

38.5%

2.6%

79.5%

23.1%

33.3%

7.7%

2.6%

2.6%

10.3%

25.6%

Controversy against Consensus Tam Leung Yen Ying Anne

Introduction

Joining the Fostering and Furthering Effective Practices in the Teaching of English, a University Grant C01ID11ittee (UCG) funded project has been a collaborative experience of secondary and tertiary education institutes in Hong Kong. There has been guidance, expertise, continuity of areas of interest, methodology and technical support otherwise unavailable at either level alone.

Nunan (1994) states "action research involves systematically changing some aspect of one's professional practice, usually in response to some issue, problem or puzzle" (p.l). Though "in response" seems to imply passivity, action research actually involves much active initiative on the part of the researcher in investigation, reading, documentation, collection and analysis of data, and construction and application of actions.

The political changes in Hong Kong and the popularity of the computer render learning English as a second language more practical and functional than before. English is no longer learnt as an end in itself. In teaching English as a second language, I emphasize the second language as a communication tool rather than as an academic subject. In my eighteen years of teaching, I have discovered that students' interest in the intricacies and complexity of the language has shifted to broader and more global aspects-its comprehensibility and intelligibility in all language skills.


Context

18 year old sixth formers preparing for Advanced Level Examination for university admissions have been trained for group discussions in their second language for at least 4 years. The oral papers in the two most important public examinations in Hong Kong have provided learners the motivation and experience necessary to give their best in such discussions.

The problem, however, was that L2 sixth formers in my two classes, with nearly half of them getting credit or above in their ordinary levels (as seen against the 7.7 % of students getting credit or above in the territory) and linguistically proficient enough to express themselves, were unable to do anything in training and examination sessions except to agree all the time with their peers. Their oral discussion therefore lacked the variety and richness required for genuine communication required for their future work and study opportunities.

The problem is not due to proficiency as demonstrated by the passes in their public examination results. It is the poverty of different and new ideas. If students are trained to discuss a wide range of topics effectively, they will come to regard their second language as a medium for developing their minds.

To achieve this goal, I had tried using intra and interclass debates, hoping that the social nature of learning and a more competitive edge could challenge my students. However hard I tried to prepare them for the debates, such as providing all the materials needed and providing teacher-fronted categorization of points after students had done some limited discussion, my students' performance was far from satisfactory in terms of quality and quantity.

In response to this problem, I investigated the causes. Reading up on debates led me to cooperative and competitive learning, positive and negative interdependence, conflict, controversy and consensus.

Johnson and Johnson (1989) have summarized the past'twenty years findings of cooperative learning. To them, there are 4 different

Controversy against Consensus 201

learning efforts. The best is the controversy condition. Next comes the debate, followed by concurrence seeking and the individualistic condition. "The current data indicate· that generally controversy will produce higher productivity, achievement, and quality of decision making than will concurrence-seeking, debate, or individualistic efforts" (p. 89). Johnson and Johnson state that controversy occurs when an individual's opinion is incompatible with another's and the two seek to reach a consensus. Debate exists when two or more individuals argue from incompatible positions and a third party announces the winner. It is a win or lose situation. Concurrence seeking occurs when members of a group strive to reach consensus and avoid disagreement. Individualistic efforts exist when individuals work on their own without interacting with each other (p. 87-88).

Aim

If we put the findings of Johnson and Johnson (1989) in our school c'ontext, it would mean that my students' normal behaviour in their L2 oral discussion belongs to concurrence seeking though the oral examination paper asks candidates to discuss the topic only and has specified that consensus is not required. However, according to Johnson and Johnson (1989), if controversy condition is the best of the four types of learning efforts, that means that the format of the public exmuination paper may serve testing purposes. However, as a training format for classroom practice, it is not to be encouraged. The format of the oral examination paper does not encourage any of the four types of learning efforts, not even the concurrence seeking condition. Controversy or debate is not mentioned in the oral discussion task though students in a group are given passages of the issue in multi perspectives to read and present before the discussion. In order to see whether classroom practice is to follow the public examination format (which is what students normally do in private tutorial schools) or whether teachers should structure oral discussion task in a better way than the existing examination format, I wish to compare two conditions of Johnson and Johnson's (1989): The controversy condition and the concurrence seeking condition, the former being the most ideal one and the latter being the naturally


developed condition found in my students though the oral examination task does not specifically require it. This is the rationale and aim of this action research.

My Analysis of Johnson's Findings

Four types of learning efforts

Types

Controversy

Debate

Concurrence seeking

Individualistic leanling

Nature of interdependence

Negative to positive

Negative

Positive

Nil

Individualistic learning is the traditional practice in Hong Kong. Concurrence-seeking is the condition found in my students' discussion. This may be due to many factors such as the cultural factor. Examples are the Chinese tradition of keeping harmony and saving others' face or school culture where students are very good friends and supportive of one another. Interdependence is entirely positive since everybody agrees with everybody else and the atmosphere is absolutely harmonious. However, as Johnson and Johnson (1989) state that even the debate condition is better than the concurrence seeking condition. Debate, in which there is only a win-or-Iose situation and in which individuals are pitted against each other as enemies and where interdependence is negative, is much better. What is the key? It is conflict.

Johnson and Johnson (1994) interpret that conflicts in both the debate condition and the controversy condition will trigger cognitive disequilibrium, leading to perspective-taking ability and cognitive development (p. 232). Conflicts in L2 oral discussions are seen to trigger cognitive development. However, according to De Bono (1991), conflicts will rarely lead to a synthesis of opinions. Each side gets more rigid about its own stance. "There is very little action or motivation on the part of either thinker to pick out the best in the


opposite view. At best the synthesis is a grudging compromise or a retreat from a position" (p.19). Conflict. alone is not seen as promoting growth.

However, Johnson and Johnson (1989) see debate and controversy as better than concurrence seeking because of the very presence of conflict. Even when the opponents are arguing from opposite positions, "the value of the controversy process lies not so much in the corrections of an opposing position, but rather in the attention and thought process it induces" (p. 89-90).

Does conflict trigger more cognitive growth than consensus? It would seem most logical then if I structured my 2 classes into 2 different groups, debate and consensus groups. However, I have tried class debates and found them relatively ineffective in large classes allowing only limited participation. The consensus group is how nearly all my students normally behave as if instructed. That is why I wish to COlnpare the best condition advocated by the Johnsons, the controversy condition, with the consensus condition. Debate is put aside for the moment.

As I see it, the difference between the controversy and the debate condition is that in the former, students are from the very beginning aware that they have to do role reversal in the conflict situation and that they must reach consensus at the end. In the latter, students are placed in conflict from the beginning to the end. The controversy condition is an education ideal in directing negative interdependence towards positive interdependence and in tying competition knots into cooperative bonds. Johnson and Johnson (1989) put the controversy condition in many stages. To my understanding, it can be best summarized into four main stages: Students prepare self, advocate self position, rebut the opposing viewpoint and synthesize all positions into consensus which all agree.

My Analysis of Johnson's Controversy Condition

For my research, I see the controversy condition in different stages.


In Stage 1, they are given materials and then tested. For example, they are given a composition topic and told to write whether they agree or disagree with the topic. From their composition, I can see whether they can understand their own position.

In Stage 2, students are placed in dyads of opposing positions. Students are to argue about the composition topic from opposing stances.

In Stage 3, students are to rebut.

In Stage 4, students are to forget all positions and reach a consensus based on all materials discussed.

Table 1 gives a breakdown of the conditions and the different stages.

Table 1 My Analysis of the ControverS)1 Condition of Johnson and Johnson (1989)

St'!Ze 1 2 3 4 Task Composition Oral discussion of composition topics Rebuttal Synthesis

writing

Learning mode Consensus Consensus Conflict Consensus Conflict with Consensus with one's with one's with the with the one's natural with a synthesis natural natural opposing opposing or the opposing compromising position position position position position opposing

positions

Planes oj Internal External External Internal External External consciousness

Thinking Advocating Defending Trying to Defending Compromising individually one's own one's own understand one's own of one's own position position the opposing position position externally externally position externally

Expression Reading Speaking Speaking Listening Speaking Speaking mode Interaction Individual dyads dyads dyads dyads dyads structure Nature oj Nil Positive Positive Positive Positive Positive resource and goal inter-dependence

In structuring the 1 ohnsons' controversy condition into s~ages like this, I hope my analysis will shed some light on why controversy has been found to be the most effective learning condition. From the internal


plane of consciousness to the external plane, from different expression modes and interaction structures, tpe dominating nature of goal and resource interdependence is positive and that of the learning mode is consensus. All efforts are geared towards positive goal interdependence and the conclusion which is the consensus.

In terms of a learning mode, I believe that asking students to role play a position is to force the students to be in consensus with that position. Although De Bono (1990) suggests that "confrontational and adversarial thinking exacerbate the ego probleln" and that role playing removes the ego problem (p. 11), I think that assigning the student a role is to force the student to engage cognitively in that role. The ego must identify with the role before s/he can think 'in' it. That is why I interpret all role playing stages as consensus.

At Stage 1, where students are told to read and identify with a position, their cognitive development takes place internally. At other stages where students are told to discuss or debate with their peers, their cognitive development is externally manifested.

In Stage 2, all the development take place in quick sequences so rapid as to appear simultaneous. While students are arguing from opposing stances, they are actually listening to the opposite position actively and understanding and therefore identifying with it for the subsequent role playing they have to do. In this way, consensus with the opposing position is achieved.

As I see it, it is no wonder that the controversy condition advocated by 10lmson and 10hnson is the best since it is a graded progression from the least effective leanling condition. Stage 1 is the individualistic condition, Stage 2, the concurrence seeking and Stage 3, the debate. The progression is geared towards an ultimate test. Stage 1 is therefore a preparatory experience of four learning conditions. Stage 2 is a revision, then Stage 3 is the exercise. Stage 4 is the ultimate test of consensus.

It would also be quite interesting to see the controversy condition as a repetition of the consensus-conflict pattern, the positive-negative interdependence pattern with the ultimate goal being positive in


interdependence. Students are eased into conflict through consensus and into negative interdependence through positive. Students are introduced to the negative side in life with awareness that they must co-operate with one another running all through the conflict. This is an education ideal underlying school systems where a society of learners must learn how to make good out of evil and live with others in hannony.

Structuring of Groups and Aims of Study

1. Controversy and Consensus Groups Students were told to write a composition on the topic 'Should Mercy Killing be Legalized in Hong Kong' as a legislative councilor who had to vote for or against the issue. After doing extensive reading on the topic through self-directed searches in libraries or on the internet, students were told to write a 500-word essay as homework.

Students' work was submitted to me with pseudonyms. Then I grouped them according to the stances revealed in their composition as 'for' or 'against'.

Students were then grouped into controversy groups with 2 students 'for' and 2 'against' the topic. The consensus groups contained either all 'for' or all 'against' stances. There were 6 groups of four students with a balance of male and female students in each condition, making up a total of 12 groups (Appendix 1).

1. Natural and Assigned Stance In order to investigate whether role playing a position has effects on students or not, students' stances were classified into natural and assigned stances. Natural stance refers to the stance originally revealed in the students' compositions. Assigned stance refers to a position not taken by the student (the student failing to submit their composition) or to a position which is the opposite of the original stance displayed in their compositions.

Ifwe refer to my analysis of the controversy condition of Johnson and Johnson (1989), students of the assigned stance would begin the


controversy condition with conflict instead of consensus in Stage 1. I would therefore wish to see whether the controversy condition which eases students into the consensus mode is' more productive than a controversy condition in which students are assigned a role and plunged students directly into a role.

I wish to see whether the controversy condition and the consensus condition begun with a natural stance are more productive than the assigned stance.

How the Research Was Conducted

Students were given in advance photostat copies of their peers' compositions typed and submitted with pseudonyms. Discussions on the same topic were held in two class periods of 35 minutes each and tape-recorded. The groups were structured in tenns of controversy or consensus, natural or assigned and balanced in gender (see Appendix 1). Students would be infonned about the results of the research at the end of the project.

Coding

Students' conversations were all recorded on cassette tape and transcribed into tapescripts. Students' discussions were then coded at sentence level. Discourse was separated into sentences according to the speaker's pauses. Each sentence was coded in relation to the previous tum of the speaker.

Here are the 6 categories of coding. An example of each is bracketed.

A: agreement (I totally agree with you.) B: disagreement (No, I disagree with it.) N: neutral statements (there are many doctors in Hong Kong who

help the ill.) BOA: back reference to agreement expressed by self or others

(I agree with what you said earlier on.) BOD: back reference to disagreement expressed by self or others

(I disagree with what you said earlier on.)

208 Action Research in El T

U: unintelligible sentences SC: self contradiction

Reliability of Coding

Coding was done by the researcher and the Senior Research Assistant. All coding was discussed and agreed upon. The resulting agreement was therefore 100%.

Findings

1. More information from controversy groups

According to Johnson, Johnson and Slnith (1986), among the achievements of controversy groups, there is "more information, both personal and impersonal, is disclosed when one is interacting with a person engaging in perspective-taking behaviours" and that "perspective-taking skills are of great importance for exchanging infonnation and opinions within a controversy" (p. 211). Producing more information is an achievement in itself especially in the students' L2. In the case of my students, it is particularly so as the sentences are seldom unintelligible or repetitive, there were only altogether less than 30/0 of unintelligible sentences as can be seen in Table 2.

In Table 2, we can see that the total number of sentences produced in all controversy groups is 21 % (166 sentences more) than in the consensus groups. If we look at the statistical differences in Table 2, we will see a 78% difference (174 turns more) found in the disagreement turns; a 31 % difference (45 tunls) in neutral statement turns; a 64% difference (14 turns more) in back statement turns; and 80% difference (12 turns more) found in other turns.


Table 2 Distribution of Argument Turns of Controversy Against Consensus Groups*

Controversy Group Consensus Group Total (% of total output) (% of total output)

A 149 (31%) 288 (74%» 377 D 199 (42%) 25 (8%) 224 N 96 (20%) 51 (17%) 147 BOA ~} (4%) 4} (1%) BOD 0

22

U ~2} (3%) I} (0%) SC 0

14

475 (100%) 309 (100%) 784

* Data based on 6 groups of learners in each grouping.

2. Richer spread of argument turns in controversy groups

It was found that controversy groups have more variety of turns than consensus groups. Although controversy groups are expected to be dominated by disagreements, disagreement turns are 42%, which is not that high when we look at their agreement turns (31 %

). Ifwe look at consensus groups, we find that agreement turns account for 74% and disagreement turns 8%. The consensus groups are dominated by agreement. They lack the variety and richness of more sophisticated discourse.

Under structured activities in which specific instructions are given to the controversy groups to disagree, the members are found to be perfectly capable of disagreeing while agreeing with one another. This finding also confirms the observation in Johnson, Johnson and Smith (1986) that when the context is cooperative, "students have the skill of disagreeing while confirming their opponent's competence"(p. 212). It must also be noted that the rich spread of turns in controversy groups is not confined to only one or two controversy groups. As shown in the 5 tables (Appendix 2) controversy groups rank higher in all argument turns than most consensus groups except in the agreement turns.


3. More retention of the opponent's information and perspective

With reference to Table 2, there are more backward references to opinions stated by oneself or peers in controversy groups than consensus groups. This also confinns Johnson and Johnsons' findings. According to Johnson, Johnson and Smith (1986), "engaging in perspective-taking behaviours in conflicts results in increased understanding and retention of the opponent's infonnation and perspective" (p. 221).

4. Table 3 Distribution of Argument Turns of Natural against Assigned Groups*

Natural (0/0 of total output) Assigned (% of total output) (Group no. I, K, E, G) (Group no. A, M, D, H)

A 130 (430/0) 113 (54%) D 103 (34%) 44 (21%) N 58 (190/0) 44 (21%) BOA

~} (3%) ~} (2%) BOD U ~} (10/0) ~} (20/0) SC

303 (100%) 210 (100%)

*Data based on 4 groups of learners in each grouping.

More information from natural groups

There are 93 more sentences (an 18% difference) from natural groups when compared to assigned groups.

Richer spread of argument turns in natural groups

In natural groups, the distribution of turns is even greater than in assigned groups. Agreement statements are predominant in assigned groups. We can therefore see that the difference in assigning students a role and that of letting students voice their own real stance. If we refer to Table 1, we can then see that natural groups begin the repetition pattern of consensus and conflict (the learning mode) in consensus, since they believe what they say in the interaction.


However, the assigned group begins the repetition exercise in conflict. To achieve better results, learning should begin., with consensus and directed towards consensus. With reference to the aim of my study, role playing is more effective if the students are allowed to choose the role they can more easily identify with.

5. Table 4 Distribution of Agreement Turns of Natural against Assigned-Controversy (CT) groups*

Natural Group no: I, K Assigned Group no: A and M CT (% of total output) CT (0/0 of total output)

A 57 (29%) 36 (31 %) D 98 (50%) 38 (32%) N 32 (16%) 36 (31%) BOA ~ } (3%) ;} (3%) BOA U ~ } (2%) ~} (3%) SU

196 (100%) 117 (100%)

Table 5 Distribution of Agreement Turns of Natural against Assigned-Consensus (CS) groups*

Natural Group no: E, G Assigned Group no: D, H CS (0/0 of total output) CS (0/0 of total output)

A 73 (68%) 77 (830/0) D 5 (50/0) 6 (60/0) N 26 (240/0) 8 (9%) BOA ~ } (3%) ~} (1%) BOA U ~ } (00/0) ~} (1%) SU

107 (100%) 93 (100%)

* Data based on 2 groups of learners in each grouping.


Table 2 shows the difference between controversy against consensus groups, and Table 3 the difference between natural and assigned groups. I then wish to see in finer details whether there is a large difference between natural and assigned stance in controversy groups (Table 4) and consensus groups (Table 5). In regrouping the data, I wish to see whether the controversy group, which is found to be more productive· than the consensus group, would be even be more productive if learners believe what they say in the controversy group.

Owing to absentees on the day of the discussions and the need to balance the same groups of students, Table 3 is a subgroup of Table 2. The data in Tables 4 and 5 are taken from Table 3.

a. The natural stance is more productive in controversy than are assigned groups

In Table 4, there is a 250/0 difference (79 more sentences) in controversy groups naturally structured than assigned.

b. More disagreement turns occur in natural controversy groups than assigned controversy groups

It is not surprising to discover that naturally structured controversy groups have more differences of opinion than students arbitrarily put in a controversy group. The former truly believe in what they say.

c. Ranking of productiveness of information of groups

In Tables 4 and 5, the best grouping is natural controversy groups ( 196 turns), and next comes assigned controversy groups (11 7 turns). So the two best groupings are still controversy groups.

The least productive grouping is assigned controversy groups (93 turns) and the second least is natural consensus group (107 turns). We can draw the conclusion that repetition pattern of conflict-consensus should begin with consensus.


Recommendation

1. Conflict before consensus (Never conflict or consensus alone)

Structured oral activities in controversy situations create conflict with the underlying awareness in students that they must reach a consensus at the end. Discussions, drama, role-playing, dialogues etc, could be structured in a way that students are pitted against one another as enemies who must be reconciled. Their differences must be resolved.

This learning condition could be done in all forms. Junior and senior students must form the habit of resolving their own conflicts in classrooms as in real life. Pure conflict, that is debate, which is not to be tied up in compromise within the group could be used less except as a focused training of how to handle conflict.

Hong Kong teachers teaching sixth-formers who have to prepare for university and sit for the Use of English Oral Paper must see the distinction between the requirement of the exam and ordinary training sessions. For exam purposes, students, of course, do not have to come to a consensus. However, we must not let our students go on discussing a topic without directing conflict towards consensus.

2. Role playing in consensus with students' own opinions (Natural stance is better than assigned stance)

Since it has been found that natural groups produce more sentences than assigned groups, it is better to structure activities or assign a role in discussion or drama that the student can identify with or support.

My action research evidences that assigning a role to students with an opposite stance will meet inevitable opposition from students. The students may find it unfair, unacceptable or impossible to playa role they cannot identify or sympathize with. Assigning a role which is in total or direct conflict with a student's own stance necessitates some extra work from the teacher. For instance, if a student cannot imagine himself or herself being the cruel stepmother, the teacher can show aspects of a stepmother that could deserve pity or sympathy. That means the teacher must help provide the consensus element for that


role. Moreover, the teacher must do this in a very interesting way, such as using audio-visual aids.

That is why in structuring an oral activity, before assigning roles or positions, the teacher must ask the students their natural choices. In my experience, more imaginative students find consensus with roles easier than the realistic, practical type of students. That is why we must structure the degree of conflict according to our knowledge of the students. Moreover, the higher ability groups in L2 could take up stronger conflict, while the lower ability group would find less argumentative conflict easier to handle.

3. Structuring controversy groups as a habit and preparation

Students from the same school are naturally more friendly. Therefore, students in the same class must form the habit of reaching consensus so that when they are uprooted fronl their velvet-lined conflict into stronger conflict with another class, they can reach consensus easier. This step-by-step transition would make theln adjust to real life conflicts more easily.

I can conclude that cooperative learning is ultimately an educational practice aiming to fully utilize the paradoxical nature of negative interdependence in the form of conflict. Consensus with self opinions is used to initiate and ease students into the mode of conflict and is a difficult goal that students must work towards.

Limitations and recommendations for further research

1. Data not large enough. Study not longitudinal.

Though there were 60 students under investigation, the data collection was hindered by the absence of some subjects. The whole process lasted a month and there was only a one-time collection <:>f data.


2. More skillful structuring and conduct of assigned stances needed.

In structuring assigned groups, I have only assigned half of the group members against their own stance as revealed in their composition. However, it was actually very difficult. A few students at first refused to take up the assigned stance. I had to persuade them that it was to balance the views in the group. A more convincing and gentle approach could find a way around this dilemma.

3. More training on how to lead the group towards consensus.

Although the topic of the oral discussion 'Should Mercy Killing be Legalised in Hong Kong?' strives towards only one answer, students in this action research could only work towards it and no one group, except in consensus groups, really all could reach a comprOlnise on the topic. Discussions were allowed to end because of a time limit. Nevertheless, their discussion was at least directed towards consensus.

Further research should be based on real concrete consensus at the end of the controversy condition, similar to doctors who have to agree on the kind of treatment for a patient. Or it could be a group of scriptwriters having to decide on one ending.

Training students to reach consensus after being in conflict is actually very difficult. Having students agree throughout an oral discussion is relatively easy. It is not only a matter of social tensions but also of intellectual tolerance. De Bono (1991) has suggested that insiders in a conflict cannot resolve the conflict. They are too involved. One way to resolve it is to have a third party resolving it (p. vii). De Bono's model is political and feasible. But he equates conflict with debate and does not believe in a self-correctional mode in which insiders could resolve their conflicts. If we believe in Johnson and Johnson, however, we can still see hope for humankind. If we take de Bono's suggestion of resolving conflicts through a third-party, with the ego playing a very different and unfamiliar role, it is not as realistic and productive as resolving the conflict through a synthesis of more identifiable stances.


4. More in-depth investigation on conflict needed.

Conflict is a very interesting subject that must be looked into:

i) Internal conflict (planes of consciousness in Table 1), as when a student finds a perspective conveyed through a more passive medium-the written language, is an interesting topic which requires more than the superficial exploration here.

ii) External conflict, as when students are pitted against one another, is only explored at the social level. How conflict would give rise to cognitive development is most interesting. Here in this action research, development is only measured in terms of quantity-number of sentences spoken. Quality is difficult to measure and awaits further research. As Oxford (1997) points out, the quality of cognitive development is often viewed as "the main goal of co-operative learning" (p. 445).

iii) Conflict can also mean contradiction and contradiction can be mutually exclusive or there can be coexistence. Paradoxes are an example. Which kind of conflict would trigger off more cognitive developlTIent or produce better learning outcomes in terms of co-operative learning?

iv) The lTIOst exciting topic for further research could be to compare the debate condition and the controversy condition. Is the attempt to push towards consensus that productive and can it render the controversy condition really superior to the debate condition? DiPardo and Freedman (1988) state that "though consensus may play a relatively more important role where one text (as in collaborative writing) or one solution (as in joint problem solving) is the goal, the importance of pushing toward agreement may still be overstressed" (p. 136). The importance of consensus after conflict must be further investigated.


The Value of Action Research

1. Action research is personal yet public

Nunan (1994) states that "research methods might be more free-ranging than those of conventional research" (p. 2). Findings are immediately relevant to the teacher's context. Its personal nature therefore makes it most interesting and precious. At the same time, the findings serve as a link of continuity with research of a similar nature.

2. Professional development of the researcher

Though not in monetary terms, I can see myself growing in that I know my students and myself more intimately. I also find that in-depth analysis of theories lends deeper and newer insights about theory application. Structuring and conduct of the research always makes the researcher more scientific and meticulous.

3. Part of the teaching community in Hong Kong

Teachers may not be convinced why they have to document, let alone publish, their reflective thinking. It is time-consuming and unnecessary. This is true only if we do not see ourselves as very lTIuch a part of the teaching profession and having a responsibility to contribute to the development of the education field in Hong Kong. However, we teachers have to publish what we find in our teaching and help the teaching community in Hong Kong to aggregate our ideas and become a dependable source of information for the TESL community in the world.

Difficulties in Action research and Ways of Overcoming Them

Nunan (1994) points out that "action research involves systematically changing some aspect of one's professional practice, usually in response to some issue, problem or puzzle"(p. 1). He points out the specific nature of action research is manifested in its investigation,


conduct and findings. Methods must be tailor-made. Though the changes could directly be relevant to the kind of students the teacher faces, the whole process must be devised by the teacher and/or researcher only. However, this process demands extra time and effort that some teachers may find impossible to give.

This difficulty could be surmounted by more pUblicity given to the value of action research below and beyond the tertiary level. Extra bonuses or allowances in terms of funds or a merit in appraisal reports, release or time off from teaching duty as an encouragement, would promote the feasibility of action research for over-worked teachers in Hong Kong and elsewhere. Students, teachers, panel-chairpersons, principals, parents, tertiary institutes, teacher unions and government departments should all first be convinced of this shared vision.

Isolated action research without the sharing of expertise and communication at different levels in the education field is wasted. The UGC funded project is a good example of how co-operative ventures really work.

Conclusion

My action research was reactive in nature. It was devised, implemented and concluded in response to a problem I observed. I found that the way my students agreed with others all the time inhibited them from acquiring the riclmess of a more diversified discourse. Instead of analyzing the problem alone, I did a comparative study of two situations: one problematic and one idealistic. I did a control experiment on a group of students with similar linguistic, cultural and social background. In this experiment, I did not carry out case studies of my students, such as analyzing why they came to consensus, so that I could devise corresponding solutions. My reading research gave me the advantages of findings of past experiences, which enabled me to formulate hypothesis. My action research started with being reactive to being proactive. I based my research on pedagogical principles.

In the reading process, I came up with more personal insights into


well-researched theories. My insights of how the sequence of conflict and consensus must be repeated and how th~ pattern should begin with consensus formed the basis of how I structured my students' activities in my research. I was able to leap from a local classroom onto a vast plain of global research experiences and back again.

Though my action research might have begun on a personal and subjective observation, it ends on general and objective findings. Although the research may look short-termed, it can be long-termed if my experiment is replicated. Despite the fact that the research may look like a model of well-researched experiments, it contains creativity in terms of analysis, structuring of activities and conclusion.

Acknowledgements

I would here like to express my deepest gratitude to Dr. Gertmde Tinker Sachs, (Assistant Professor and Principal Investigator) and Sandy Shum (Senior Research Assistant), both at the City University of Hong Kong for their expertise and guidance. Sandy has been a co-researcher in this project. We discussed all the coding together. Dr. Tinker Sachs has given invaluable advice throughout all the stages of the project. Their expertise has opened up new realms of research where meticulous care and insights can win exciting discoveries.

References

De Bono, E. (1999). Six thinking hats. England: Penguin.

De Bono, E. (1991). Conflicts: A better way to resolve them. England: Penguin.

DiPardo, A. and Freedman, S. W. (1988). Peer response groups in writing classrooms. Review of Educational Research, 58 (2), 119-150.


Johnson, D.W. and Johnson, R.T. (1989). Cooperation and competition: Theory and research. Minnesota: Interaction Book Company.

Johnson, D.W. and Johnson, R.T. (1994). Learning together and alone: Cooperative, competitive and individualistic learning (4th ed.). Boston: Allyn and Bacon.

Johnson, D. W., Johnson, R.T. and Smith, K.A. (1986). Academic conflict among students: Controversy and learning. In R. S. Fieldman (Ed.), The social psychology of education: Current research and theory (pp. 199-231). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Nunan, D. (1994). The more things change the more they say the same: Or why action research doesn't work. In D. Nunan, R. Berry and V. Berry (Eds.), Bringing about changes in language education. Proceedings of the international Language in Education Conference 1994 (pp. 1-20). Hong Kong: University of Hong Kong.

Oxford, R.L. (1997). Cooperative learning, collaborative learning and interaction: Three communicative strands in the language classroom. The Modern Language Journal, 81 (4),443-456.


Appendix 1: Structure of Groups Group Name Types of Grouping: Gender

Controversy (CT), Consensus (CS)

A SI CT-Ass M S2 M S3 M S4 M

B S5 CT-Nat F S6 F S7 F S8 F

D S9 CS-Ass M SIO M SII F SI2 F

E SI3 CS-Nat M SI4 M SI5 F SI6 F

F SI7 CS-Nat F SI8 M SI9 F

G S20 CS-Nat F S21 M S22 F S23 M

H S24 CS-Ass M S25 M S26 F S27 CT-Nat F S28 M S29 M S30 M

J S31 CT-Nat F S32 M S33 F S34 F

K S35 CT-Nat F S36 M S37 F S38 F

L S39 CT-Ass M S40 M S41 M

M S42 CT-Ass F S42 F S44 F S45 F

ComposItion

Original Stance

Absent Absent For For Against Against For For Absent Absent Absent Absent Against Against Against Against Against Against Against Against Against Against Against Absent Absent Absent Against Against For For Against Against Against Against For For Against Against Against Against

. Against Against Against Against Against

Ability

Assigned Stance

Against L Against L For L For L Against H Against H For H For H For H For H For H For H Against L Against L Against L Against L Against A Against A Against A Against L Against L Against L Against L For A For A For A Against A Against A For A For A Against A Against A Against A Against A For H For H Against H Against H Against A For A For A For H For H Against H Against H

Abbreviations: Ability: L= lower, A=Average, H=Higher levels

~r':i"!IT·

222 Action Research in EL T Controversy against Consensus 223

Appendix 2: Ranking of groups on Different Turns 3. Back Statement Turns

Ranking Group CS/CT N (Nat)/ A (Ass) Frequency 1. Agreement Turns 1 B CT N 9

'I Ranking Group CS/CT N (Nat)/ A (Ass) Frequency 2 A CT A 4

1 J CS N 50 3 K CT N 4

2 B CT N 47 4 F CS N 3 ! 3 E CS N 44 5 D CS A 1 {

4 D CS A 41 5 H CS A 36 4. Neutral Turns

6 K CT N 30 Ranking Group CS/CT N (Nat)/ A (Ass) Frequency 7 G CS N 29 1 K CT N 24 8 F CS N 28 2 A CT N 21 9 I CT N 27 3 B CT A 21 10 M CT A 18 4 M CT A 15 11 A CT A 18 5 E CS N 14 12 L CT A 9 6 G CS N 12

7 J CS N 10 8 I CT N 8

2. Disagreement Turns 9 F CS N 7 Ranking GrouE CS/CT N (Nat)/ A (Ass) Frequency 10 L CT A 7

1 I CT N 60 11 H CS A 6

2 B CT N 43 12 D CS A 2

3 K CT N 38 4 A CT A 22 5. Unclassified Turns 5 L CT A 20 Ranking Group CS/CT N (Nat)/ A (Ass) Frequency 6 M CT A 16 1 B CT N 5 7 J CS N 13 2 K CT N 4 8 H CS A 6 3 A CT A 2 9 E CS N 3 4 D CS A 1 10 G CS N 2 5 M CS A 1 11 D CS N 1 12 F CS A 0 Abbreviations:

CS Consensus CT Controversy N Natural, Original Stance A Assigned Stance

----------------- -----------------------------------------------------------

Interactive Grammar Lessons Joan Chan

Introduction

My action research focuses on grammar teaching. Among all dimensions concerning the teaching of English, grammar teaching has been the one that troubles me the most. Since there is no one "correct" method of teaching grammar, teachers really need to explore the methodology themselves and I have always wanted to keep improving my techniques. I decided to participate in this action research project because I was quite fascinated by the rationale behind action research. I also saw that this would be a very good opportunity for me to be given some valuable professional support and assistance to help me become a better teacher.

Background

Context of Teaching

My school is a Band 3 girls' school in Kowloon with Chinese as the medium of teaching. Students at my school are generally well behaved. Discipline is -not quite a problem in the classroom, but what teachers usually complain about is that students are too passive and lack self-motivation in learning.

Teachers on the English panel, including myself, often find that our students have quite good listening and oral abilities, but are comparatively weak in their writing, vocabulary and grammar. It


seems that most of my colleagues are seeking effective ways to improve students' performance in these areas.

There are three terms in each school year at our school. Two English unified form tests as well as a number of dictations will be given to students each term in order to encourage them to study continuously, and in order to obtain results for formative assessment.

My Teaching Experience

This is my second year teaching lower and higher forms students English. After my first year of working, I studied full-time for my diploma in education.

Background of My Students

The participants in this study are a group of twenty students from one of the secondary 1 remedial English classes. In order to strengthen the language foundation of secondary 1 students entering our school this year, five out of the six secondary 1 classes have their English classes in split classes, with twenty students in each class.

Students from the target class are relatively weak in English. They can be quite talkative and active in class, but can get bored easily during grammar lessons. Although almo st all of them think that learning grammar is important, most of them are not particularly interested in English and usually do not enjoy grammar lessons. Students in this class usually do not ask questions actively when they do not understand something.

My Action Research

Identifying an Area of Focus

"Grammar has always been a problem for language teachers and students" (Hanner, 1997). When I read this from an article by Harmer about English teaching, I could not agree more. This W<;lS also Qne of the major reasons why I decided to participate in this action research

. project.

Interactive Grammar Lessons 227

I enjoy teaching quite a lot. I take pleasure in helping my students to discover the fun of learning English. Unf,ortunately, it is the part about teaching "grammar" that has been giving me the most trouble and headache. As Harmer (1997) said, both the grammar rules and the perceptions of grammar teaching are very complex and it seems that they will never stop changing and developing. Therefore, "there is no one right way of teaching grammar".

The above conclusion is sensible, and yet was not exactly a piece of good news for me, as I always felt that I was quite alone in this grammar teaching "battle", being left alone in my classroom to test different ways of teaching grammar by trial-and-error.

Symptoms of the Problem

Of course, students will be bored when given a simple granU11ar rule, together with dozens of "exceptions" where this rule does NOT hold true. I experienced much tension from their looks being so bored, confused and empty. Sometimes I tried to play grammar games with them or show them how the different grammar items being taught are used in our daily lives. The responses from my students got better. However, when it came to tests and examinations, as well as compositions, I would again find that students were not really able to recap what they had learned or use grammar correctly.

Possible Causes for the Problem

The teaching and learning process was not as effective as I would like it to be. Looking at my practices closely, I identified two possible causes. Firstly, my classroom was quite "teacher-centered" and students were quite passive as learners. I taught and talked too much. Second, students did not have much chance to make meaningful use of the target grammar items in class, or once they got out of their English classes, in their daily lives. Needless to say, what is not used by us would be forgotten quite easily.

So I began looking for possible solutions and action planning.


Action Plan

1. Cooperative learning

My action plan was, first, trying to make my grammar classroom a more student -centered one.

Before I conducted my action research, I started to learn and read more about cooperative learning. Some of researchers have found that students usually gain positively when they work cooperatively in the classroom (e.g. Roy, 1995; Kagan, 1996). It is "a process by which students work together in groups to master material initially presented by the teacher" (Slavin, 1 990a). Some researchers found that cooperative learning can aid retention and understanding in the second-language classroom because peer teaching often happens and it benefits both the one who asks questions and the explainer as well (Slavin, 1990b; Davidheiser, 1996).

It seemed that cooperative learning was a good approach to try in order to help me change my classroom into a more student -centered one. I also hoped that it could help my students to take more responsibility for their own learning as well as become more self-motivated and active learners. Therefore, I decided that I would try adopting cooperative learning in my grammar class.

2. Project - maldng a class newsletter

Since my second concern was about providing opportumtIes for meaningful use of grammar, I wanted to put cooperative learning in a context where meaningful use was encouraged. I wanted to try something other than short in-class activities, something that could be based on a theme (since the secondary 1 curriculum of our school is a theme-based one) and involve more active participation from the students.

Project work seemed to me a very good choice. Not only can it give students an opportunity to practise using English meaningfully, it will also give them a sense of completion and achievement after they had put in their effort and active involvement (Lee, Li & Lee, 1999). I also hoped that throughout my research period, each group could do


at least three small projects so that at the end of the school year, a school newspaper could be published and s.tudents' products could be shared with other classmates.

Process of Research

The first project started in the middle of the second term. Students had already learned the uses of some quantity words, like "a few", "many", "much", "a lot of', "a little", "few" and "little," etc. Since many of them still got quite confused with the uses of these words, I decided to have them make meaningful uses of what they had just learned through doing the first project. The S.l English curriculum was a theme-based one and around that tilne, the theme was "my body". It was quite an interesting theme and students got quite excited measuring and getting information about their different body parts. Therefore, I wanted students to do their first project based on this topic.

Planning Lesson 1

I figured that students would be quite interested in going around measuring their friends and teachers and asking questions about the topic "my body". Once they got the data they collected, they would be able to practise using those quantity words and present the interesting result s to other classmates.

Lesson 1 and Some Reflections

The objective of the first lesson for this project was to help students construct a simple questionnaire so that they could go out and collect the data from their friends and teachers. However, as my attention had been put in the final part where they actually present the data they would be getting (the target grammar point would not he used until then), I was not quite aware that the stage where students construct their questionnaire could itself be a very good learning opportunity and a good tool for consolidating previous grammar items they had learned through meaningful use as well!

The reason I mention this point is that halfway through the first lesson, I realized that students followed the examples I gave them too closely


and therefore almost all the questions they brainstormed were "how long" and "how big" questions. When I noticed this, I tried to encourage them to make use of all the questions words they had learned in order to get different kinds of information about the body of their friends and teachers. The students then worked in groups of four to draft a questionnaire for their group concerning each group's own interests.

The following is a transcription from the first lesson as I tried to help the students develop their questions.

T: Uh for your newspaper, I would like you to do a survey [T writes down 'survey}... A survey means that you go out and ask uh for example 20 people, okay, some questions and then when we have all the information, then, we can put it in our newspaper and make it look very interesting for other classmates to read. Okay, so we, we are going to form some questions and you can go and ask your teachers or maybe your .. , some other friends some information, okay, about your body. Okay, before, before you actually go out and ask some questions, we need to form a survey first. We would do it in our groups. So can you please go to your groups quickly and quietly now!

T: Oh yes, bring the book. [Ss move to form a group]

T: Alice group? Where is Alice's group? Where is uh .... Cheryl's group? Where is Yuki's group?

S: Here. T: Cheung Hiu Wa. So, the four of you right? Uh let's see. Can Grace

move to, sit next to Coral. Can you two (go in this group) ... [unintelligible]. Okay so, the question will be about our body but you can use all the questions uh question words you have learned okay? So for example I want to know urn, .,. if you want to know urn ... [T holds one S's ponytail] how long is this, how can I ask?

S: pon ... po T: No, ask the questions. If you want to ask Cheryl how long is this then

how can you ask her? Let's see, Angela? S: How long is your hair? T: How long is your hair? Okay. [T writes down 'How long is your

hairl _____ ?J. The hair is, anyone remembers what do we call this ... yesterday? It begins with 'p'.

S: Pony ... T: Pony what? (S : ponytail.) T: Pony-? Ponytail. Good. [T writes down 'ponytailJ. You can ask

how long, ah, what else can you ask for 'how long'? How long? Give me some more, some examples! Can you please?

S: Shoe size.


T: Ah, okay, now, for shoe size [T writes down the words] usually we ask 'what is your shoe size' [T writes down What is your shoe size ?}. Okay? And also for uh ... your height and ... weight okay. Height means how many cm and weight means how many what? [T writes down 'height -cm' and 'weight}

S: Kg. T: Kg, kilograms, right. [T writes down 'kgJ. Uh ... what else can we ask

for how long? So, how long ... ? S: Finger. T: How long is your finger? [T writes down the question] And say a little

finger, tell etc. etc. Except, besides finger, what else can we measure for our finger, so how long ... [T points to her finger nail] How long is your. .. ?

S: Finger nails. T: Finger nails. Good. IT writes down 'finger nailsJ. Okay I hope you

won't ask people how long their toenails are but if you want to you can. Uh ... what else we can ask for how long. How long ... it's hard to measure though. How about 'how big'? [T writes down 'how big}. How big is your what? People ask how big is your ... ah ... ?

S: Ear. T: Okay, how long is ... your ear? [T writes 'how long is your ear'?] ... How

big is your ... ? S: Eyes. T: Ah, eyes. [T writes down). Okay, in your group, you can think of more.

Okay so these are some examples you may also try to ask, some funny questions. You may think of some interesting questions to ask. Okay? So make use of the body parts you've learned, okay. So let's see urn ... I want you to write down the question on a piece of paper and then each group should ask no more than five ... [T looks at her paper]. Let's see ... try to think of, at least 10 ... at least 10 write down the questions. Write down the questions. [T gives pieces of paper to Ss]. Okay, I'm going to give you ten minutes, ten minutes.

This lesson was a good start in the sense that I started to feel the difference between my previous classroom and the present one in which cooperative learning "started" to happen. Of course things were not as "under control" as before. It is true that more opportunities were given to the students to practise grammar meaningfully, and that the classroom became more student-centered. Interesting conversations happened as students tried to correct one another on the mistakes they made. However, I really needed to prepare much more and do more advanced planning for the lessons. The role of a "coordinator" was not an easy one. I also tended to


correct students' grammatical mistakes too soon as I walked around the classroom. I promised myself that next time I would prepare much better.

Planning Lesson 2

Before this lesson, I collected the drafts of the questionnaires my students had made. I found that the questions they asked were still not very diversified. Although we brainstormed together quite a lot of possible questions in the previous lesson, most of the questions were still about measurements only. I hoped that I could make them understand better that more interesting results would be obtained if they tried to be creative and think of other different questions. The goal of this lesson, therefore, was to help my students make a final draft of the questionnaire so that they could go and collect data any time.


This time, the students seemed to understand better. They were able to make some amendments to the content of their questionnaires. I tried hard to wait until their content was all right to help them with their grammatical accuracy. Some differences between groups were shown because some groups clearly performed better than the others. Some groups needed to take the questionnaires home to continue working on them.

I did not have any major reflections after this lesson. The class went by very quickly. However, I started to be a little worried because I had already used two extra classes just to "prepare" my students to do their surveys. I would be behind in the scheme of work soon.

Planning Lesson 3

All groups had handed in their final version of the questionnaire. Some of them even typed up the questionnaire on the computer and made it quite attractive to look at. I was impressed to see the extra effort they put in themselves and did things beyond my requirements. It seemed that they were enjoying what they were doing and were quite eager to start collecting their data.


The objective of the lesson was to prepare the students to conduct their little surveys with their friends and teachers. I gave every student a handout on the different steps of conducting a survey and we practiced together how they should introduce themselves, ask for permission to conduct their survey, as well as to thank the individuals for their assistance.

Reflections after Lesson 3

Although this lesson was quite straightforWard, students were very attentive. They were also very excited (although some of them were worried and also some were anxious) to know that they could finally start to conduct their surveys "in English"!

I was quite pleased with the students' performance during this lesson, but at the same time, I got worried because it seemed that I was using a lot more time than I had expected. I had underestimated the time I would need just for the different kinds of "preparation work" I needed to do with my students.

As I still needed to follow the normal scheme of work with other colleagues who were not doing action research, I began to feel a little bit frustrated and helpless. What was more, my students still needed to take the unified form tests and it seemed that what we were doing in class was not directly related to their "studies". What we had been doing was not helping them to practise what they had leanled in "this term". The schedule of things in our classroonl became quite tight and rushed towards the end of the school term.

Some Reflections (After looking at the raw data students' collected)

After the students gave me the raw data they collected, we did not have much tilne to do the written part of the project, as it would take quite an amount of time to teach them the format of a report like this. Besides, I really needed to catch up with the scheme of work and get my students ready for the second term examination.

I asked the students to hand in their raw data to me before the Easter holiday so that I could make sure that everybody would have the raw data ready when it came to the final stage. I expected only a stack of


questionnaires from each group. However, to my surprise again, some groups presented their questionnaires very neatly and tidily, and some of them even coloured their questionnaires. This showed me that they considered the questionnaires to be something important and that they enj oyed doing this task very much.

Some colleagues, who were interviewed by the girls, talked to me afterwards, and some asked me curiously about the students' project. Their class teachers were very happy when they told me that their students were very "serious" and really talked to them in English! To make sure that the students really did ask teachers questions in English, I talked to several other colleagues and they also praised the students positively.

Although I still did not know if the students would be able to use the target items meaningfully or if they would remember it when having their examinations and tests, I was pleased to know that they really did the survey with pleasure and enjoyed doing this task.

Planning Lesson 4

It was already the third tenn. This term was the shortest one in the year, and classes during the third term were shortened as well because the summer time schedule was used. Instead of spending several short periods to finish what we needed to do, I decided to spend an afternoon with my students and give them a "workshop" on writing a report.

Learning from the experience of Lesson I, I spent much time preparing for this session. In order to let my students understand better what options they have in presenting their data, and, more importantly, how the quantity words they have learned could be useful when showing others their findings, I thought carefully and made them a handout.


The lesson ran more smoothly than the first lesson, but the students still needed to spend quite a lot of time grouping the raw data together. Choosing what interested them also took some groups a long time.


Finally, in this lesson, I could finally feel that we were getting very close to the original goal. Students w9rked head-to-head when grouping the data they had obtained and trying to look for some interesting information that they would like to present to their classmates using the target grammar items.

Of course, the class time was not enough for them to even finish the first rough draft of the report. They continued working on it after the lesson. Time was so rushed that I could not afford another extra class to help them write their final draft. I met some groups after class.

The following excerpt shows how I prepared students to write their report.

T: Now you have got your results, only you know about it, okay? But you want, now you want to let other classmates know, okay? So that's why we need to write a report? So, here, you don't just give the whole stack of paper to Janet [T picks up a stack of paper and attempts to give them to S] and let her read it, okay? It's very boring to read questionnaires, right? Okay? So that's why we are writing a, a report, okay? So if you look at the box here, look at the box here, okay? So usually after we have finished collecting the information, we would like to share it with other people, okay? However, we can't just give the whole stack of paper to others, [T picks up the stack of paper and shows them to the class] okay? That's why we have to put the results together neatly, okay? So that people will understand what we are doing and then what kind of report, what important and interesting information we have found out, okay? So these are the examples here. Can you look, there is, should be one per group. Can you look at this one? The short paper ... .. .So usually there're four important parts in each report, okay? Let's see if you can find out for me, okay? Ah, first of all, what do you see under the picture? What do you see under the picture? Of course you can put 'pictures', right? There is a topic, okay? Now what happen, what would happen if you don't put your topic? ... If you don't, people will not know what you are saying, okay?

T: ... So the first thing is that you must have a title, [T writes '(1) title' on the board] okay. Second thing ... second thing, okay? Look at the first paragraph, look at the first paragraph. What is the first paragraph about?

S: Group members. T: ... Okay? What is the second piece of information? We interviewed forty

classmates, twenty boys and twenty girls. What is this information, ... okay? So, ah, your group members, [T writes 'group members' on the board] okay?


S: How many people? T: Yes, how many people you interviewed? [T writes 'people you

interviewed' on the board] Okay, who are they? S: Classmates .... T: Okay, so it made the difference, right? Did you go and ask twenty

teachers or twenty old people, or twenty babies, okay? [S laughs] So here you need to tell the people, okay? Third piece of, ah, the third piece of information, we asked them about their favorite sports and the reasons for liking them. What is this, what is this? What does it tell you? ... okay? What does it tell you? ...

S: The reason. T: The reasons, why? S: The result, the result. Result. T: Yes? [S: result.] Results? Not yet, okay? So, ah, the reason, why? Why,

why do you have to this survey? What do you want to find out, okay? So before you, you did the survey, what did you want to find out? so, urn .. what your survey is about? [T writes 'what your survey is about' and 'what did you do?' on the board] okay? What did you do? Did you go and measure people or things? {T puts her hand on S's head] Or did you just ask them questions, okay? What kind of questions did you ask them, okay? Look at the fourth sentences, okay? So we, ah, we would like to share with you the most interesting things that you, have found out, okay? So this is the reason why you are writing this report, okay?

Results I Discussion

The third school tenn ended in a rush for both the students and me. Only one group was able to complete the final draft of their report and hand it in to me. Therefore, I could only evaluate the "effectiveness" of this new method of teaching by observation and reflection.

As I looked at the transcriptions of my lessons and recalled the responses from the students, I noticed that the classroom did become more student-centered. Although a lot of time was spent in doing things that seemed to be "irrelevant" to "grammar," students did have many opportunities to learn cooperatively and practise what they had learned in some meaningful ways. If I had had more time, I would certainly have spent more time with them on looking at how we could make good use of the quantity words as well as other w~ys to present their data to others.


Even though our "newsletter" was far from being publishable, I could see that students did become more active. and took more initiative in their own learning compared with before. When doing the tasks, they gradually started to enjoy what they were doing and do things beyond my requirements (unlike doing other kinds of "homework", where they handed it in for the sake of "responsibility"). Although the students were not able to finish a "perfect" final product, I could see that they found some findings very interesting and wanted to share with others. Some of them tried to correct others' mistakes. Somehow, the objective of cooperative learning and giving students the opportunity to put what they have learned into meaningful use was achieved because they knew now that what they had learned could really help them to do things in their daily lives and achieve a communicative purpose.

It seems that a student-centered classroom in which cooperative learning takes place and where students are given opportunities to put the grammar they have leanled into meaningful uses did create a better learning environment. Needless to say, it calls for a major change in the teacher's role from the "teach" - er to a "coordinator". I am comfortable with this role, but I really needed to make quite a lot more preparation.

Unfortunately, conclusions cannot be drawn at the present moment about the "effectiveness" of the new change on helping students to remember better what they have learned. Although the students' examination results of the third tenn were improved compared with their second tenn results, a direct causal relationship still cannot be drawn. More observations should be done to look at students' performance when using the quantity words in the future.

Although "doing a project" is a good way to integrate a lot of different skills into one task and a sense of achievement can be given to students upon their completion of the project, it is really time-consuming. Still, I think it is still very worthwhile to do projects especially if the curriculum is a theme-based one. If one would like to adopt this idea into the nonnal curriculum, some adjustments, for example the assessment methods used, as well as other kinds of coordination should be made so that it could be integrated into the school-based curriculum better.


Problems, Concerns and Issues that Affected My Action Research

The two school terms in which I conducted my action research passed especially quickly. Somehow I avoided saying that "I have completed my action research" because in many aspects, I could not quite finish all the things I had expected to do. Conducting a classroom-based action research project can, on one hand, allow me to get a lot of first-hand information as well as professional assistance from the research team to help myself improve my own teaching in a very systematic kind of way. And yet, to me, another important objective of conducting any kind of research is to share your findings with others. You have got to organize a lot of information and present your fmdings in a "formal" manner.

Doing this kind of organization is beneficial to me, but needless to say, this kind of paper work consumes a large amount of time. For a full-time language teacher like me, this is a bit too demanding indeed. A "teacher researcher", unlike a full-time researcher, is already occupied by a huge amount of teaching and non-teaching duties. Although there is no denying that action research is beneficial, in a sense, it does mean a lot of sacrifice of your precious time for relaxation, and even time spent with students.

There is also another problem about time constraints. Because the scheme of work is followed quite tightly in the lower forms at our school, and there are also unified form tests, it was more difficult than I thought to let my students do more little projects during the school terms. And as I still needed to help my students to review for the tests and examinations as well as completing the normal scheme of work, shortage of time was really a very prominent factor affecting my action research during the research period.

Recommendations

Although my action research is not as "successful" as I would have liked it to be, I still believe that it is something worthwhile and valuable for teachers to try. However, it is important for teachers to


first prepare themselves psychologically for the workload it is going to involve. Although this opportunity for a teacher's professional development is precious, the teacher's commitment throughout the research period is crucial. Being a language teacher in Hong Kong already involves much tension from work, so it is very easy for one to become frustrated. As a result, support from the university's research team as well as the school itself is both very important and helpful for teachers doing action research.

Of course, I believe that even though not many teachers are involved "formally" in action research during the school year, almost every teacher is constantly trying hard to improve his/her own teaching. Different scales of "infonnal" action research might be taking place. in every school because teachers are always looking for more effective ways of teaching. If a sharing culture can be developed mllong teachers, and the university can develop a partnership relationship with schools in Hong Kong and provide the kind of support that teacher-researchers need during the action research period, then although no formal papers might be presented and no big-scale conferences are held, the spirit of action research can still exist to encourage the professional development of language teachers in Hong Kong.

References

Davidheiser, J.C. (1996). Grammar groups in the student-centered classroom. Foreign Language Annals, 2, 29.

Harmer, J. (1997). Teaching grammar. English Teaching Professional, 6,38-39.

Kagan, S. (Ed.) (1996). An introduction to cooperative learning. San Juan, CA: Harlan Rimmerman.

Lee, May M.T., Li, Benjamin K.W. & Lee, Icy K.B. (1999). Project work: Practical guidelines. Hong Kong: The Hong Kong Institute of Education.


Roy, P. (1995) Cultivating cooperative group process skills within the language arts classroom. In Stahl, R.J. (Ed.). Cooperative learning in language arts: A handbookfor teachers (pp.18-48). Menlo Park, Calif.: Innovative Learning Publications.

Slavin, R.E. (1990a). Ability grouping, cooperative learning and the gifted. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 14 (3), 3-8, 28-30.

Slavin, R.E. (1990b). Cooperative learning: Theory, research, and practice. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Useful Action Research References

Action Research in Hong Kong

Book Chapters, Journal Articles and Research Reports

Brock, M., Yu, B. & Wong, M. (1992). "Jounalling" together: Collaborative diary-keeping and teacher development. In J. Flowerdew, M. Brock & S. Hsia, (Eds.), Perspective on second language -teacher education (pp. 295-307). Hong Kong: City Polytechnic of Hong Kong.

Chan, Y. H. (1996). Action research as professional development for EL T practitioners. Working papers in ELT and applied linguistics, 2 (1), 17-28. Hong Kong: Hong Kong Polytechnic University.

Curtis, A. (1999). Use of action research in exploring the use of spoken English in Hong Kong classrooms. In Y.M. Cheah & S.M. Ng (Eds.), Language instructional issues in Asian classrooms (pp.75-88). Newark, DE: IDAC, International Reading Association.

Gow, L., Kember, D. & McKay, J. (1996) Improving student learning through action research into teaching. In D. Watkins & J.B. Biggs (Eds.), The Chinese learner: Cultural, psychological and contextual influences (pp.243-268). Hong Kong: CERC.

Kember, D. & Kelly, M. (1993). Improving teaching through action research. Campbelltown, N.S.W.: HERDSA.

Kember, D. & McKay, J. (1996). Action research into the quality of student learning. Journal of Higher Education, 67 (5), 528-554.

Kember, D. (1998). Action research: Towards an alternative framework for educational development. Distance Education, 19 (1),43-63.

Li, W. S. (1995) Action research and teachers. TESL Forum" 2 (1), 5-11.

Li, W. S., Yu, W. M., Lam, T. S. & Fok, P. K. (1999). The lack of


action research: The case for Hong Kong. Educational Action Research, 7 (1), 33-50.

Mahoney, D., Detaramani, C. & Yu, B. (1991). Let's do something about it! An action research case study. Perspectives, 3 (2), 25-43.

Nunan, D (1996). Leamer strategy training in the classroom: An action research study. TESOL Journal, 6(1), 35-41.

Nunan, D. (1994). The more things change, the more they stay the same: Why action research does not work. In D. Nunan, R. Berry & V. Berry (Eds.), Bringing about change in language education (pp.I-19). Proceedings of the International Language in Education Conference. Hong Kong: University of Hong Kong.

Pennington, M. C. (1993). Assessing training inputs in collaborative action research to introduce process writing in Hong Kong secondary schools. Research Report, 27, 1-55. Hong Kong: Department of English, City Polytechnic of Hong Kong.

Pennington, M. C. (1993). Process writing in Hong Kong secondary schools. Research Report of City University of Hong Kong, Department of English, 27, 1-55.

Poon, A. (1992). Action research: A Study on using TV news to improve listening proficiency. Research Report No. 14. Hong Kong: City Polytechnic of Hong Kong.

Richards, J. C. (1991). Towards reflective teaching. Institute of Language in Education Journal, 8, 39-45.

Samson, E. & Wright, A. (Eds.) (1992). Hong Kong papers in linguistics and language teaching, 15. Hong Kong: English Centre, The University of Hong Kong.

Tang, Y. F. (1994). Action research: Practitioners taking the lead to improve educational practices. TESL Forum, 1 (1), 17-20.

Tinker Sachs, G. (1999). Action research files: An interview with Anne Bums. Networks: An On-line Journal of Teacher Research. Toronto, Canada: 0ISE, University of Toronto. http://www.oise.utoronto.ca/ ... ctdinetworks/contributorNotes.html

Tinker Sachs, G. (2000). Teacher and researcher autonomy in action research. Prospect, 15 (3), 35-51.

Useful Action Research References 243

Tsui, A. B. M. (1993). Challenges in education and continuous teacher development. In A. B. M ... Tsui & 1. Johnson (Eds.), Education papers 18: Teacher education and development (pp.145-I67). Hong Kong: University of Hong Kong.

Action Research in Other Countries

Books, Book Chapters, Journal Articles and Research Reports

Adelman, C. (1993). Kurt Lewin and the origins of action research. Educational Action Research, 1 (1), 7-24.

Ainscough, V. (1997). Reflection in action: Increasing teacher awareness -of learning needs of specific socio-cultural groups. System, 25 (4),571-579.

Allwrigth, D. & Bailey, K.M. (1991 ). Focus on classrooms. An introduction to classroom research for language teachers. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Altrichter, H., Posch, P. & Somekn, B. (1993). Teachers investigate their work: An introduction to the methods of action research. London and New York: Routledge.

Anderson, G. L., Herr, K & Nihlen, A. S. (1994). Studying your own school: An educator s guide to qualitative practitioner research. London: Sage Publications Co.

Arias, R. (1995). The teacher as researcher: Action research revisited. College ESL, 5 (1), 62-76.

Atkinson. S. (1994). Rethinking the principles and practice of action research: The tensions for the teacher-researcher. Educational Action Research, 2 (3), 383-401.

Atweh, B., Kemmis, S. & Weeks, P. (Eds.). (1998). Action research in practice: Partnerships for social justice in education. London: Routledge.

Bailey, K. M. (1998). Approaches to empirical research in instructional settings. In H. Byrnes (Ed.), Learning foreign and second languages: Perspectives in research and scholarship (pp. 75-104). New York: Modem Language Association of America.


Bailey, K. M. (2001a). Twenty questions about action research. PASAA, 32, 1-18 (A Journal of Language Teaching and Learning in Thailand).

Bailey, K. M. (200 I b). Action research, teacher research, and classroom research in language teaching. In M. Ce1ce-Murcia (Ed.), Teaching English as a second or foreign language (3 rd ed), (pp. 489-498). Boston: Heinle & Heinle.

Bailey,K. M., Curtis, A. & Nunan, D. (Eds.) (1996). Voices from the language classroom: Qualitative research in second language education. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Bailey, K. M., Curtis, A. & Nunan, D. (1998). Undeniable insights: The collaborative use of three professional development practices. TEsaL Quarterly, 32 (3), 545-556.

Bailey, K. M., Curtis, A. & Nunan, D. (2001). Pursuing professional development: The self as source. Boston: Heinle and Heinle.

Borgia, E. T. & Schuler, D. (1996, November). Action research in early childhood education. ERIC Digest, 2-3.

Browder, L. (1994). Exploring the meanings of teacher empowennent. International Journal of Educational Reform, 3 (2),137-153.

Burgess, R. G. (Ed.) (1985). Strategies of educational research: Qualitative methods. London: Falmer Press.

Bums, A. (1997). Valuing diversity: Action researching disparate learner groups. TESOL Journal, 7 (1), 6-10.

Bums, A. (1999). Collaborative action research for English teachers. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Bums, A. (in press a). Action research. In E. Hikel (Ed.), Handbook of research in second language teaching and learning. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Bums, A. (in press b). Action research: Contributions and future directions in ELT. In C. Davison & J. Cummins (Eds.), Kluwer International Handbook of English language education. Amsterdam: Kluwer.


Burns, A., & Hood, S. (Eds.). (1995). Teachers' voices: Exploring course design in a changing curricultfm. Sydney: NCELTR

Bums, A., & Hood, S. (Eds.). (1997). Teachers' voices 2: Teaching disparate learner groups. Sydney: NCEL TR

Bums, A., & Hood, S. (Eds.). (1998). Teachers' voices 3: Teaching critical literacy. Sydney: NCELTR.

Bums, A., Hood, S., Lukin, A. & McPherson, P. (1996). Expanding the professionalism of TESOL practitioners through action research. TESOL Research Symposium, Chicago, 1996.

Bums, A. & Joyce, H. (Eds.). (1999). Teachers' voices 4: Staying learner-centred in a competency-based curriculum. Sydney: NCELTR.

Bums, A. & Joyce, H. (Eds.). (2001). Teachers' voices 7: Teaching vocabulary. Sydney: NCELTR.

Bums, A., Joyce, H. & GoUin, S. (1996). 'I see what you mean ': Using spoken discourse in the classroom: A handbook for teachers. Sydney: NCEL TR.

Carr, W. & Kemmis, S. (1986). Becoming critical: Education, knowledge and action research. London: Falmer Press.

Carrol, M. (1994). Journal writing as a learning and research tool in the adult classroom. TESOL Journal, 4 (1), 19-22.

Chaudron, C. (1988). Second language classrooms: Research on teaching and learning. Cambridge: Cambridge UP.

Cochran-Smith, M. & Lytle, S. (1990). Research on teaching and teacher research: The issues that divide. Educational Researcher, 19(2), 2-11.

Cochran-Smith, M. & Lytle, S. (1993). Inside-outside: Teacher Research and knowledge. New York: Teachers College Press.

Cochran-Smith, M. & Lytle, S. (1998). Teacher research: The questions that persist. International Journal of Leadership in Education, 1(1), 19 - 36.

Corey, S. (1949). Action research, fundamental research and educational practices. Teachers College Record, 50, 509-514.


Corey, S. (1953). Action research to improve school practice. New York: Teacher's College Press.

Crookes, G (1993). Action research for second language teachers: Going beyond teacher research. Applied Linguistics, 14 (2), 130-144.

Cumming, A., Auerbach, E., Cohen, A. D., Connor, U., Hornberger, N. H., Pennycook, A., Spada, N. & Tarone, E. (1994). Alternatives in TESOL research: Descriptive, interpretive,· and ideological orientations. TESOL Quarterly, 28 (4),673-703.

Dadds, M. (1995). Passionate enquiry and school development: A story about teacher action research. London: Falmer Press.

Dana, N. F. (1995). Action research, school change and the silencing of teacher voice. Action in Teacher Education, 16 (4), 59-70.

De Gauna, P. R, Diaz, C., Gonzalez, V. & Garaizar, 1. (1995). Teachers' professional development as a process of critical action research Educational Action Research, 3 (2), 183-194.

Delaney, A. E. & Bailey, K. M. (2000). Teaching journals: writing for professional development. ESL Magazine, 3 (2), 16-18.

Draper, D. (1994). Reflection on practice: Taldng the time to think. Masters' field study report. San Francisco: San Francisco State University.

Ebbutt, D. (1985). Educational action research: Some general concerns and specific quibbles. In R. B. Burgess, (Ed.), Issues in educational research: Qualitative methods (pp. 152-174). London: Falmer Press.

Elliott, J. (1991). Action research for education change. Milton Keynes, England: Open University Press.

Ellis, R. (1998). Teaching and research: Options in grammar teaching. TESOL Quarterly, 32 (1) 39-60.

Freeman, D. (1996). Redefining the relationship between research and what teachers know. In K.M. Bailey & D. Nunan (eds.), Voices from the language classroom (pp.88-lI5)., Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.


Freeman, D. (1998). Doing teacher research. From inquiry to understanding. Boston, MA: Heinle ~nd Heinle Publishers.

Goetz, J. P. & LeCompte, M. D. (1984). Ethnography and qualitative design in educational research. Orlando, FL: Academic Press.

Grimmett, P. P. (1996). The struggles of teacher researchers in a context of education reform. Journal of Curriculum and Supervision, 12 (1), 37-65.

Grundy, S. (1982). Three modes of action research. Curriculum Perspectives, 2 (3), 23-34.

Grundy, S. (1994). Action research at the school level: Possibilities and problems. Educational Action Research, 2 (1), 23-27.

Grundy, S. (1995). Action research as professional development. Occasional paper No.1. Murdock: Innovative Links Project.

Gurney, M. (1990). Supporting colleagues in the secondary school In P. Lomax (Ed.), Managing staff development in schools: An action research approach (pp.93-99). Clevedon, England: Multilingual Matters.

Hamilton, M. L. (1995). Relevant readings in action research. Action in Teacher Education, 16 (4), 79-81.

Hammersley, M. (1993). On the teacher as researcher. Educational Action Research, 1 (3),425-445.

Hollingsworth, S. (1997). What have we learned from these cases on action research and educational reform. In S. Hollingsworth (Ed.), In action research (pp. 312-317). London: Falmer Press.

Hopkins, D. (1993). A teacher's guide to classroom research. Buckingham: Open University Press.

Hustler, D., Cassidy, T. & Cia T. (Eds.). (1986). Action research in classrooms and schools. London: Allen and Unwin.

Jenkins, J. M. (1994). Action research: School improvement at the grass roots. International Journal of Educational Reform, 3 (4), 470-473.

Jenkins, P. (1993). Estonia: Self development for teachers and pupils. In J. Edge & K Richards (Eds.), Teachers develop teachers

248. Action Research in EL T

research: Papers on classroom research and teacher development (pp.42-48). Oxford: Heinemann.

Johnson, B. M. (1995). Why conduct action research? Teacher and Change, 3 (1), 90-104.

Johnston, S. (1994). Is action research a 'natural' process for teachers? Educational Action Research, 2 (1), 39-48.

Johnstone, R. (1990). Action research in the foreign languages classroom: Case-studies in the assessment of oral competence. Language Learning Journal, 1,22-25.

Kebir, C. (1994). An action research look at the communicative strategies of adult learners. TESOL Journal, 4 (1), 28-3l.

Kemmis, S. & McTaggart, R. (Eds.). (1988). The action research planner. Victoria: Deakin University.

Kemmis, S. & Wilkinson, M. (1998). Participatory action research and the study of practice. In B. Atweh, S. Kelnmis & P. Weeks (Eds.), Action research in practice. Partnerships for social justice in education (pp.21-36). London: Routledge.

Kemmis, S. (1981). The professional development of teachers through involvement in action-research projects. Geelong: Deakin University.

Kemmis, S. (1995). Action research. In T. Husen & N. Postlethwaite (Eds.), International encyclopedia of education (pp.179-182). London: Pergammon Press.

Koenig, J. & Zuengler, J. (1994). Teacher/Researcher collaboration: Studying student and teacher goals in oral classroom activities. TESOL Journal, 4 (1), 40-43.

. Lomax, P. (1990). Managing staff development in schools: An action research approach. Clevedon, England: Multilingual Matters Ltd.

Long, M. H. (1983). Training the second language teacher as classroom researcher. In J. E. Alatis, H. H. Stem, P. Strevens (Eds.), Applied linguistics and the preparation of second language teachers: Toward a rationale (pp. 281-297). Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.


Lytle, S. L. l!'- Cochran-Smith, M. (1992). Teacher research as a way of knowmg. In 1. Hall, C. H. Campbell and EJ. Miech (Eds.), Class acts. Teachers reflect on their own classroom practice (pp.I-30). Cambridge, MA: Harvard Educational Review.

McFarland, K. & Stansell, J. (1993). Historical perspectives. In L. Patterson, C. M. Santa, K. Short & K. Smith (Eds.), Teachers are researchers: Reflection and action (pp.12-18). Newark, DE: International Reading Association.

McLean, J. (1995). Improving education through action research: A guide for administrators and teachers. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.

McNiff, J. (1988). Action research: Principles and practice. London: Macmillan Education.

McNiff, J. (1993). Teaching as learning: An action research approach. London: Routledge.

Mcpherson, P. (1997). Action research: Exploring learner diversity. Prospects, 12 (1), 50-62.

Miller, G. & Bench, K. (1996). Get in on the action. Learning, 25 (3), 24-26.

Nichols, R. (1997). Action research in health care: The collaborative action research network health care group. Educational Action Researcher, 5 (2), 185-192.

Nixon, J. (1981). A teacher s guide to action research: Evaluation, enquiry and development in the classroom. London: Grant McIntyre.

Noffke. S. E. (1995). Action research and democratic schooling: problematic and potentials. In S. E. Noffke & R. B. Stevenson, (Eds.), Educational action research: Becoming practically critical (pp.1-12). New York: Teachers College Press.

Nunan, D. (1990). Understanding language classrooms. A guide for teacher-initiated action. New York: Prentice-Hall.

Nunes, M. B. C. (1992). Action research and reading difficulty. English for Specific Purposes, 11 (2), 177-186.

-~~-----~----------------------------------------------------------------


Oja, S. N. & Smulyan, L. (1989). Collaborative action research: A developmental approach. London: Falmer Press.

Otto, W (1992). The role of research in reading instruction. In S. J. Samuels, A. E. Farstrup, (Eds.), What research has to say about reading instruction (pp. 1-16). Newark, DE: International Reading Association, Inc.

Patterson, L. (Ed.). (1993). Teachers are researchers: Reflection and action. Newark, DE: International Reading Association.

Pica, T. (1994). Questions from the language classroom: Research perspectives. TESOL Quarterly, 28, 1,49-79.

Pritchard, 1. A. (2002). Travelers and trolls: Practitioner research and institutional review boards. Educational Researcher, 31 (3), 3-13.

Quigley, A. & Kuhn, G. W. (1991). Creating practical knowledge through action research: Posing problems, solving problems and improving daily practice. San Franscisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers.

Rainey, 1. (2000). Action research and the English as a foreign language practitioner: Time to take stock. Educational Action Research, 8( 1), 65-91.

Richards, J. C. & Lockhart, C. (1994). Reflective teaching in second language classrooms. New York: CaInbridge University Press.

Santa, C. M., Isaacson, L. & Manning, C. (1987). Changing content instruction through action research. Reading Teacher, 40 (4), 434-438.

Schroeder, K. (1997). Participatory action research in a traditional academic setting: Lessons from the Canada-Asia partnership. Convergence, 30 (4),41-49.

Shumsky, A. (1958). The action research way of learning: An approach to in-service education. New York: Bureau of Publications, Teachers' College, Columbia University.

Stewart, S. R, Baker, D. & Macdonald, C. J. (1994). One classroom teacher's personal narrative collaborative research on the teaching practicum Educational Action Research, 2 (3), 339-346.

Strauss, P. (1995). No easy answers: The dilemmas and challenges of


teacher research. Educational Action Research, 3 (1), 29-53.

Stringer, E. T. (1996). Action research~' A handbook for practitioners. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Thome, C. & Qiang, W (1996). Action research in language teacher education. English Language Teaching Journal, 50 (3),254-262.

Tucker, G. R. & Donato, R. (1995). Developing a second-language research component within a teacher-education program. In J.E. Alatis (Ed.), Linguistics and the education of language teachers: Ethnolinguistic, psycholinguistic and sociolinguistic aspects (pp. 453-470). Washington, D.C.: Georgetown University Press.

Van Lier, L. (1989). Classroom research in second language acquisition Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 10, 173-186.

Van-Gyn, G. H. (1996). Reflective practice: The needs of professions and the promise of cooperative education. Journal of Cooperative Education, 31 (2-3),103-131.

Walker, M. J. (1996). Images of professional development: Teaching, learning and action research. Action research series no. 2. South Africa: HSRC Publishers.

Wallace, M. J. (1998). Action research for language teachers. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Waters-Adams, S. (1994). Collaboration and action research: A cautionary tale. Educational Action Research, 2 (2), 195-21l.

Watt, M. L. & Watt, D. L. (1993). Teacher research, action research: the logo action research collaborative. Educational Action Research, 1(1), 35-63.

Winter, R. (1989). Learning from experience: Principles and practice in action research. London: Falmer Press.

Zeichner, K. M. (1993). Action research: Personal renewal and social reconstruction. Educational Action Research, 1(2), 199-219.

Zeichner, K. M. (1995). Beyond the divide of teacher research and academic research. Teachers and Teaching: Theory and Practice, 1 (2), 153-172.

Zeichner, K. M. & Noffke, S. (2001). Practitioner research. In V.


. Richardson (Ed.), Handbook of research on teaching (4thed., pp. 298-330). Washington, DC: American Educational research Association.

Zuber-Skerritt, O. (1992). Action research in higher education: Examples and reflections. London: Kogan Page.

Zuber-Skerritt, O. (Ed.) (1996). New directions in action research. London: Falmer Press.

Websites to Help You Get Started and to Publish Your Work

Action Research Organisations, Centres, Universities and Personal Homepages

Action Learning International - "Virtual meeting place for action learners & researchers worldwide" --http://www.imc.org.uk/imc/al-inter/

Action Research at Queen's University --http://educ.queensu.ca/-ar/

Action Research Collaboration of Greater St. Louis --http://www.csd.org/arc.html

Action Research in Education --http://ousd.kl2.ca.us/netday/links/ Action_Researchlar.html

Action Research Links: a Beginners Guide to Action Research --http://modules.royalroads.ca/rru_handbook/action.htm

Action Research Network, Ireland --http://www.iol.ie/ ... rayo/

Action Research Project: Improving the Writing Process by Julie Beckman, Pepperdine University --http://hale.pepperdine.edu

Action Research Resources at Southern Cross University --http://www.scu.edu.aulschools/gcm/ar/arhome.html

Action Research: A Brief Overview by Judith M. Newman -- http://qualitative-research.net/fqslbandl/el-OOart-38.htm


Action Research: Jack Whitehead's Homepage at University of Bath --http://www.bath.ac.uk/-edsajw/,, '

Action Research-on-the-Web Help (AROWHELP) --http://open.k12.or.us/arowhe1p/projects.html

An Action Research Bibliography by School of Education, University of Colorado -- http://www .cudenver. edul"'ffiryder/itc/ act_res.html

An Introduction to Action Research by Dan MacIsaac --http://www.phy.nau.edul-danmac/actionrsch.html

Center for Higher Education Development, Coventry University --http://www.ched.coventry.ac.uk or http://193.61.107.611ched/ (search for action research)

Collaborative Action Research Network (CARN) - University of East Anglia --http://www.uea.ac.uk/care/carn/

Collaborative Action Research Project, University Of Wyoming College of Education --http://www.uwyo.edu/edu/lhdev/faculty/FLORIRFactre.htm

Comparative Education and Action Research --http://nutmeg.ctstateu.eduldepts/edul557Iresearch.html

Education As Inquiry: A Teacher I Action Research Site by Judith M. Newman --http://users.andara.com/ "'jnewmani

Education Resources (Action Research/Teacher as Researcher) --http://www.mcrel. org/resources/links/ action. asp

Educational Research Resource Links- ERRL, A Collection of Useful Web Sites for Educational Researchers Prepared by Carla Piper --http://www.chapman. edul soe/faculty /piper/index.html#Resources

for Teachers

Emerging Technologies - Action Research --http://www.emtech.net

Internet Resources For Participatory Action Research --http://www.goshen.edulsoan!soan96p.htm


National Teen Action Research Center, The Institute For Community Research --http://www.teenactionresearch.org/first.htm

References on Action Research --http://www.auckland.ac.nz/msis/isworldlaction.htm

Research to Practice: Guidelines for Planning Action Research Projects --http://archon.educ.kent.edu

Teacher Research Sites About Action Research --http://millpark.ddouglas.k12.or.us/teacher_research_sites.htm

Tzung-Hsien's Action Research, Taiwan --http://www.msu.eduluser/huangtzulaction.html

Willy Allen's "NRM changelinks" --http://nrm.massey.ac.nz/changelinks/ar.html

Action Research in Hong Kong.

Action Research Initiatives and Support (in Chinese) --http://ci-Iab.ied.edu.hk/aris/

Action Research Project, University of Hong Kong --http://www.netfront.net/~dancky/action.htm

Fostering and Furthering Effective Practices 111 the Teaching of English, City University of Hong Kong --http://www.cityu.edu.hk/elt_arlhk

Integration of Pupils with Special Needs 111 Ordinary Schools by Education Department, Hong Kong --http://www.ed.gov.hklednewhp/school/education_services/spschs/e nglish/integration.htm

International Society for Teacher Education --http://teachemet.hkbu.edu.hklteachernet/iste/v4n I.html

The Educational Development Resource Centre; The Hong Kong Polytechnic University hrtp:11158.132.100.210/INET_EDU.folder/EducResearch.html

I

I


Journals to Publish Your Work

Educational Action Research - A fuily-refereed international journal concerned with exploring the unity between educational research and practice. Address: Professor Bridget Somekh, Educational Action Research, Institute of Education, Manchester Metropolitan University, 799 Wilmslow Road, Manchester M20 8RR, United Kingdom (ear(lihnmu.ac.uk). (http://www.triangle.co.uklear)

Evaluation & Research in Education - This journal aims to make methods of evaluation and research in education available to teachers, administrators and research workers. Papers published in the journal: (l) report evaluation and research findings; (2) treat conceptual and methodological issues; and/or (3) consider the implications of the above for action. There is an extensive book reviews section and also occasional reports on educational materials and equipment. Editor: Steve Higgins (University of Newcastle).

PA C Journal - a journal for language teachers in Asia with a focus on Action Research. The Journal is a consortium of Language Teaching Associations: Japan Association for Language Teaching (JALT) , Korea TESOL, Thai TESOL and English Teachers Association of the Republic of China

Online Journals:

Action Research International Online Journal - Refereed on line journal of action research. --http://www.scu.edu.aulschools/gcm!ar/ari/arihome.html

Networks: An On-line Journal for Teacher Research - The first on-line journal dedicated to teacher research. --http://www.oise.utoronto.ca/~ctdlnetworks

Canterbury Action Research Network Journal --http://www.cant.ac.ukldepts/acadlteached/cantarnetljournall.htm

Global Anthological Journal of Action Learning (GAJAL) --http://www.free-press.com!joumals/gajal

Action Research Gertrude's Book

Documents

Transcript of Action Research Gertrude's Book