GRAHA.

\1 CROOKES 131

Having made this distinction, let us recognize a core area for action
research-teachers doing research On their own teaching and the learning of
Action Research for SecondLanguage Teachers: their own students. Nunan (1990: 63) cites Kemmis and McTaggart (1982):
action research is 'trying outideas in practiceas a meansof improvement and as
Going Beyond Teacher Research a means of increasing knowledge about the curriculum, teaching, and learning'.
Van Lier (1988) cites Cohen and Manion (1985: 174), who define action
GRAHAM CROOKES research as 'small-scale intervention in the functioning of the real world and a
Universil)' of Hawaii close examination of the effects of such intervention'.
These definitions subsume at least two distinguishable trends. The first is an
In this paper I outline the history ofaction research, and distinguish between older. relativelv conservative line, which finds action research. equivalent to
two kinds ofaction research, both ofconsiderableimportanceand utility to the rese~ch done bv a 'teacher-researcher', The second is a newer, more progres-
second language (SL) field. I then discuss action research reports,. which may sive line where the term 'actionresearch' is used to refer to aspects of critical
have been a source of some concerns expressed as to the quality of actton education practice. that is. education and educational research which is
research. Although action research reports may takeforms differentfrom those committed to emancipating individuals from the domination of unexamined
oforthodox research, I suggestthat they are ofinterestand potential benefit to assumptions embodied in the status quo (ct. Ericson 1986: 208). The older line
both the regular SL teacher and the profession as a whole. is nominally value-free (but in practice is not)-the newer line is explicitly value-
laden. Both kinds are important, but whether our field understands or appreci-
1. I:'ITRODVCrION • ates them equally is questionable (see Section 3).
Although 'action research' has a long history, it is a term which has only quite I have said that action research is notjruly new. This really applies to the older
recently become known and used in ESL. It is apparently, therefore. something conception just mentioned.' Thus defined, action research seems no morethan
'new', and predictably has already become a buzzword within the field of second a description of what good teachers might be expected to do in the course of
language studies. There are good reasons for being. sceptical of anything the their teaching and thinking, and thus while praiseworthy, seems hardly
ESL field takes up and finds fashionable, and this has already led to the innovative. Whether such activities have in fact been a standard part of teaching
suspicion in some quarters that action resear~h implies a ~e~ resear~h is questionable, however. Olson (1990) refers to US teachers engaging in
methodolozv which will lead to work of poor quality or work which IS undesir- curriculum design and related classroom research during the first two decades
able in other ways (for example, Jarvis 1991; ct. Brumfit and Mitchell 1989; of this century (for example, Lowry 1908) but this appears to have been excep-
Usher and Brvantl989; Winter 1989). It is the purpose of the present paper to tional. During the post-war period, with extensive federal funding, US educa-
clarify the nature of action research, and thereby dispel this suspicion. Accord- tional research followed the practice of industry and adopted an 'R and D'
ingly: I first outline the history of action research, and distinguish between two model (Carr and Kemmis 1986), which accepted that researchers would
kinds of action research, both of considerable importance and utility to the SL research and teachers would teach. and the twain would only meet on
field. I comment briefly on the written products of action research. which are curriculum projects, in which the researchers would tell the teachers what to do.
part of the source of the suspicions concerning quality, and argue that. while the This was certainly the case. for example, in the Hawaii English Project (Brandon
forms of action research reports are different from those of orthodox research, 1982; Rodgers and Richards n.d.), which ran through the 1970s. A contrasting
they are of interest and potential benefit to both the regular SL teacher and the but equally unsatisfactory situation is claimed to have existed in Britain during
profession as a whole. this period; according to Elliott (1987; 162):

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

in the United Kingdom during the late 19605and early 19705 ... curricula were being
There are varying understandings of the term 'action research' (Kelly 1985; misused bv teachers. who adapted them to match their traditional pedagogy ... the
Chesler 1990). At the very least, it carries a general implication that teachers problem was exacerbated by the prevailing ideology of teacher autonomy. which gave
will be involved in a research activity. An important difference between acnon developers little control overthe use of theirproducts.
research and other research done by teachers is that in the latter instance
teachers might well be doing research on issues and questions which are.those Some interest in action research in mainstream education was apparent during
considered most important by the established community of scholars in the the 1950s and 1960s (Corey 1953; Wann 1953), and it was probably at this
relevant field! i.e. theory-driven research. However, m acnon resear~h It IS time that it first became a possibility in SL work (Lane 1962), but examples of
accepted that research questions should emerge from a teacher s own actual practice seem to have been rare until recently. when there has been
immediate concerns and problems.'
Applied l.inguistics, Vol. 14.No.2 © Oxford UniversityPress 19IJ3
132 ACTION RESEARCH FOR SECOND LA!<Gl:AGE TEACHERS GRAHAM CROOKES 133

renewed interest and a greater amount of such research. This has emerged
earliest in the UK (notably through the efforts of Stenhouse, for example, 1975, 4. AcnON RESEARCH OF THE SECOND KIND
and cf, Nixon 1981), Europe, and Australia, and only very lately in the US (cf. I tum now to themoreradical conception of action research, which is particu-
Sanford 1981; Kemmis and McTaggart 1988; Cochran-Smith and Lytle 1990; larly associated "ith the work of Carr and Kemmis (for example, 1986) and
Holly 1991). Though not new, then, this kind of action research is at least re- Whitehead (for example, Whitehead and Lomax 1987), and which has gone
newed, and is in itself desirable, in that the more people there are doing research almost without representation in SL discussions of this topic. Before attempting
on relevant matters thebetter. to define it, I "ill explain why it is important and needed,
Research into social institutions, such as schools, has been heavily influenced
3. AcnON RESEARCH OF THE FIRST xrxo by the 'Received View' in philosophy of science (now discredited; cr. Crookes
The straightforward teacher-researcher aspect of action research seems quite 1992), which among other things presented science as value-free and objective.
attractive to educational establishments. The US Department of Education has The counterside to this is that most ofthescientific community have seenvalues
solicited research of this sort, and believes that the development of a local as not something worthy of investigation. In thecontext of educational research,
capacity for inquiry and problem-solving' is highly desirable in improving state the result has been to perceive schools as 'neutral, non-political places that go
education (Olson 1990: I). Considerable efforts have been expended on about the business of educating children as well as they can. We assume they are
encouraging 'teacher-researcher' and 'university-school' partnerships (for eager for new practices that will enable them to do better' (Sirotnik and Oakes
example, Sirotnik and Goodlad 1988). Teacher-researchers are figures praised 1986: 5). There has been little investigation of the values that schools actually
in many research articles who 'model professional behavior through seizing embody, and there has been a general attempt to use research simply to enable
authority for their subject matter and activities (Bullock 1987: 23). Their schools better to achieve their unquestioned goals.
efforts are supposed to foster connections between universities (as research This is regrettable. because there is an inherent contradiction between the
institutions) and schools, and are also expected to integrate the functions of process of education and the needs of the institutions within which education is
teacher and researcher by ensuring that teachers do research or collaborate supposed to happen. This can be seen in the differing goals of those whose main
actively with researchers. This, it is hoped, will contribute to the improvement of purpose in an educational institution is to support and maintain it (the
the teaching professional and the utilization of research. 1t is this teacher- administrators) as opposed to those who deliver education itself (the teachers).
research version of action research which has surfaced in the literature of SL If this were not the case, one hundred years of reform efforts in American
research and pedagogy (for example, Florio and Walsh 1981: Gebhard, Gaitan. education would not have been successfully resisted, and classrooms and
and Oprandy 1987; Long 1989; Nunan 1989a. 1989b, 1990; Brindley 1990; lessons would not still be almost the same as they were many decades ago (but
Allwright and Bailey 1991). As Cochran-Smith and Lytle (1990) note, how- they are--ct. Goodlad 1984; Cohen 1988; Cuban 1988). The fact of the matter
ever, much of this body of work is actually 'published singly by university is thatto exist, institutions mustobtain resources. distribute rewards. and resist
researchers and [is] intended for academic audiences', encroachment from other competitive institutions in the social sphere
There is no major methodological distinction to be made between 'regular' (Mcintyre 1981), while at the same time delivering education, The character-
research and themore conservative line in action research. All thenormal tools istics of a social institution which has preserved itself as long as schools have
of social science or educational research can be brought to bear, to the extent include self-preservation mechanisms and structures which enable it to
that the teacher doing action research is familiar with them or wishes to use successfully obtain resources and distribute rewards to those that support it.
them. In practice, techniques which lend themselves to use in small-scale They also act to preserve it from internal destabilization (which includes the
investigations. and those which can capitalize upon the investigator's familiarity process of change itself) and from external competition. Such mechanisms are
and participation in the situation investigated are particularly appropriate often inintical to education which might meet a society's highest goals, and
(Winter 1989).' There must be some problem or question which acts as the create a 'literate, culturally enlightened, critically thinking citizenry' (Sirotnik
impetus to the work, and then after that, various regular steps can be taken: and Oakes, 1986: 4), (Consider the point that both British and American
observation of one's students or one'sown teaching. some form of datacollec- societies, for example, are supposed to be democracies, yet within them the
tion relevant to the research question. or (to take a more qualitative perspective) primary institution socializing future citizens is extremely undemocratic, at all
the revision or development of the initial research question; finally followed by levels.j Unless teachers are aware of this fact, and continually investigate the
some attempt to utilize the data to answer the question and thereby solve the extent to which their purposes are being subverted and their professional values
problem. ignored, they may eventually be prevented from actually educating. Teachers'
research into the degree to which they are attaining their goals or into the
problems they are facing in doing so (that is, action research) is therefore a sine
 134 ACTION RESEARCH FOR SECOND LA."Gt:AGE TEACHERS GRAHAM CROOKES 13S
qua nOll for the delivery of education (as opposed to, for example, child- thoseengaged inthis reflective process [must] attempt to 'bracket" their experience-
minding, or what some have called 'schooling') by schools to their students. that is they attempt to stand outside their experience andattend toitinsucha way that
In this line of thought, action research they movebeyond what appear to be common-sense interpretations of what things
mean. In this way they areable to approach setting aside their ordinary assumptions
provides ameans by which distorted self-understandings may be overcome by teachers about their situations and attain a heightened consciousness and clarified understand-

,
analyzing theway their ownpractices andunderstandings areshaped by broader ideo- ingabout the range ofmeanings that participants attach to schoolevents. (Sirotnik and
logical conditions [and] .. . by linking reflection to action. offersteachers andothersa Oakes 1986; 35)
wayofbecoming aware of howthoseaspects ofthesocial orderwhich frustrate rational
change may be overcome. (Carr and Kemmis 1986; 179-80) When a cycle of investigation is concluded, the results must be com-
municated-first, to those who engaged in the research itself, and also to other
Carr and Kemmis are not satisfied with a conception of action research in which teachers and interested parties. Since the intent of the report (as well as the
teachers simply identify a problem and solve it-they wish to see the develop- reflection and inquiry) is to lead to immediate action, they must be com-
ment of a cyclical program of reform, whose results are reflected on and further municated to teachers in forms they can immediately utilize. This leads to a
refined and developed in collaborative investigative communities: 'The estab- major area in which progressive action researchmay dispute standard research
lishment of a widening circle of self-reflective communities of action
researchers ... foreshadows and engenders a different form of social organiza-
t practice-how the findings of investigations are communicated to teachers.
Through coexisting with regular research reports, action research reports may

I
tion' (Carr and Kemmis 1986; 185). This conception of the school as a com- influence and benefit teachers access to more established report formats.
munity of researchers is also to be found much earlier in Schaefer (1967) as well
as, from a less critical perspective, the teacher center movement (for example, S. THE UTIt.lZATION OF RESEARCH AND ACTION RESEARCH
Shostak 1987). It is an important component in distinguishing this second kind There is a continuing widespread disposition among teachers generally (not just
of action research from that discussed earlier-compare Gore and Zeichner those in SL education) that conventional research findings (at least as normally
(1991: 123). who observe: presented) are insufficiently relevant to their day-to-day problems (for example,
Beasley and Riordan 1981; Carr and Kemmis 1986; Bullock 1987; Eykyn
what we have most often seen in the US action research literature is a purely
individualist version of action research which largely ignores the social conditions of
1987; Miranda 1988; McDonough and Mcfronough 1990; and ct. Armstrong
schooling and society. 1980; Sanford 1981; Neubert and Binko 1987; Tyler 1988; Orem 1990;
Allwright and Bailey 1991). In this, teachers are supported by researchers
The techniques involved in this kind of action research will not necessarily be critical from various standpoints of the body of knowledge generated bveduca-
distinguishable from the full range of educational research techniques (Myers tional research thus far (for example, Armstrong 1980; Haberman and Sikula
1985) but the range of techniques to be chosen from may be narrowed by the 1991). There are various reasons for this. (1) It can legitimately be recognized
social organization involved in doing action research. and its reflective. that because of topics addressed or the preliminary nature of many potentially-
COllaborative, and dialogic nature. In particular, it should be understood that the relevant lines of work, some work in regular education and SL-specific research
objective of this kind of action research is locally-valid understandings of prob- really is irrelevant. at least in the short run (Lightbown 1985). (2) Most research
lems in teaching and learning, not necessarily findings of maximal generality.' reports are specifically not targeted to individuals' day-to-day problems. As
This means that on the one hand, large databases. techniques for their reduction Shavelson (1988: 5) has observed, if a teacher believes that 'education research
and analysis, and steps which allo;;" the replicability of results across many should directly and immediately apply to a particular issue, problem, or

I
different environments are less needed. On the other hand, techniques which decision' that she or he faces, 'the probability that any single study or series of
capitalize on the actors' and investigators' deep familiarity with the situation are studies could possibly meet ... these conditions must be quite close to zero'-
appropriate.' In addition, a central concept of critical theory is unconstrained unless the teacher takes action him/herself, of course. (3) Teachers have been
dialogue which permits rational analysis and conceptual development. This led to believe that if one knew what the right theory (i.e.body of knowledge) was,
should take place through individual teachers reflection and communication one could Simply apply it to practice and all problems of practice would be
with their co-investigators, so the concepts used and the forms by which results solved. But, in fact. practical judgments are alwavs made under conditions of
arecommunicated must reflect this," Action research. therefore, muststart with 'bounded rationality' (Simon 1957, 1958; see discussion in Emmel 1966;
the ideas and concepts of teachers, but it must be recognized that these are quite Hartnett and Naish 1976. and ct. Torbert 1981). Under these conditions,
likely to embody the unexamined assumptions of the school culture which playa 'theoretical knOWledge is often incomplete and practice situations never fully
role in causing many of the problems teachers face (ialse consciousness). understood ... practice is always underdetermined by theory (Usher and Bryant
Consequently, these must be developed through reflection and enquiry, and 1989; 74)'. 'Theory' will be to varying degrees inapplicable in this sense,
136 ACTION RESEARCH FOR SECO:<D LA."GUAGE TEACHERS GRAHAM CROOKES 137

precisely because of the unknowable dimension of practice on a moment-to- expressed by various authorities cited at the outset of this paper. The reports
moment basis.' (4) Many research reports, given in both oral and written form, are, after all, intended for a particular audience: fellow action researchers
use unfamiliar concepts and a rhetorical format which serves the purposes of the involved in the work reported; the researcher him/herself, in that the reporting
community of mainstream researchers, rather than of teachers (Mohr 1987; process is part of the reflection involved in changing practice; and fellow
Kidder 1991); a major concern of those using this format is to present state- teachers in similar suuanons (Wmter 1989). An acnon research report, there-
ments in a standard form, whose use is in:ended to facilitate the replicability of fore, should not be read as if unsuccessfully targeted for an academic journal (ct.
studies and their critical assessment Cochran-Smith and Lytle 1990). Its contents should, however, be disseminated
The desires that teachers havefor clarity and relevance may leadnon-action (as research is not research unless communicated-Stem 1983). A range of
researchers to respond by moving away from accompanying prescriptions for alternatives to the academic Journal article exist (for example, conference
practice with a detailed accounting of the bases of such prescriptions' (And ct. presentation, teacher-center poster), most of which are probably more effective
also Shavelson 1988: 9 on the 'greater risks' that must be taken to 'bring in disseminating the information contained in such a report. I I Investigations of
research to bear on the information needs of policy-makers and practitioners') the utilization of research findings make it clear that findings only presented in
This sort of response to the understandable pressures from teachers and policy- academic journals stand little chance of being utilized. Other means of informa-
makers actually undermines the relationship between teachers and research.' tion dissemination must be adopted, in which the personal element is involved,
There are defensible reasons why research is reported the way it is-but since either in dissemination alone (popham 1991; cf. 'linking systems', Rogers 1986;
those reasons do not obtain under all circumstances. it is possible to argue for 'teacher research linkers', Billups and Rauth 1987), or through institutionalizing
alternative report and knowledge transmission formats, in the following way. action research so as to change school staffs into communities of action
The stronger the claims for general applicability that a study makes and the researchers (ct. Bennett and Desforges 1985).
more damage such claims, if wrong, could do, the greater the demand that
should be made for reliability, validity, and trustworthiness (ct. LeCompte and 6. SUMMARY
Goetz 1982; Mishler 1990) of the study. which in tum can be obtained through I have tried to outline here the differences between regular research, one kind of
requiring full adherence to scientific practice in both the carrying out and action research perhaps better called teacher research, and a second kind of
reporting of the study The less strong such claims. the less need to conform to action research which most truly warrants that name. All are important and
the values implicit in the (currently) standard rhetoric of science (not a value- useful; but it is the radical wing of action research which is least understood and
free rhetoric: Schuster and Yeo 1986: Bazerman 1987; Nelson. McGill, and conducted, and which I have highlighted here. It deserves our support for the
McCloskey 1987). As Argyris and Schon (1991: 85) say: 'from the action .following reasons: (1) its results are actually as relevant to the immediate needs
researcher's perspective. the challenge is to define and meet standards of and problems of teachers as any research can be; (2) it supports the process of
appropriate rigor without sacrificing relevance.' Since action research starts teacher reflection. which is vital for educational renewal and professional
with the immediate needs of a teacher or a group of teachers, and is carried out growth; (3) engaging in action research may facilitate teachers doing other kinds
by these individuals with their limited time and resources, their reports (without of research and using the results of such research; and (4) because of its basis in
which their actions cannot be considered research-Ebbutt 1985) should critical theory, it faces up to the unquestioned values embodied in educational
reflect such realities and limitations. They also reflect the expository predisposi- institutions which regularly threaten to cut the ground from under teachers,
tions of writer and targeted audience: they may be more discursive. subjective, 'deprofessionalizing' them and preventing the delivery of true education.
and anecdotal or discoursal (by 'orthodox' standards). (See, for example, So long as research is only presented as something that other people-not
Reason and Rowan 1981; Ray 1987; Whitehead and Lomax 1987.) As Winter teachers-do, and so long as it seems to teachers that research reports must
(1989: 73-4) states: necessarily be written in a language they do not read or speak. we willbe accom-
modating the exploitative pressures of the institutions teachers work in. Action
since our writing emerges from a different set of relationships (collaborative and against such pressures can take many forms. The conducting of action research
action-oriented. rather than authoritative andobservation-oriented) the format of our as a means of critical reflection on teaching and on the sociopolitical context in
writing should also be different. ... certain stylistic features ofacadernic' writing could which teachers find themselves has the potential to be a major component in the
also be seen as inappropriate for action-research reports. i.e. those . . . which seem to continuing struggle to improve SL teaching.
express the expert role by suggesting a withdrawal from personal involvement. and a
sustained abstraction from concrete detail.
(Revised version received October1992)
It is such teacher-oriented reports, '" when presented beyond the confines of
their intended application or dissemination. which can cause the concern
 ACf10S RESEARCH FOR SECOSD LA1'GUAGE TEACHERS GRAHAM CROOKES 139

(, The conditions surrounding such a dialogue must also be supportive. Usher and
\\ f f'I( )WLEDGE:-'1E'STS . . Bryant (1989) provide a critique of action research relevant to this line of argument but
\ \"l(!r- S10Craig Chaudron. George Jacobs. Julie ~re~es. ~~ Mlk~ Long for comm~nts prosecuted at a much higher level of abstraction drawing on the ideas of Habennas (for
"I her versions of this paper, and to the Applied Linguistics reviewersfor exception- example, 1972) and Gadamer (1981); cf, also Lather(1986}
,'11 !,"
II" tl",,'lpfu! comments. 7 A similar situation exists in psychology: 'When psychologists are requested to rank
J order the usefulness of informational sources to their practice, research articles and
books of empirical research are consistently rated at the bottom of the scale' (Kupfersmid
'\ or':) 1988; 635). And from the researcher's perspective. Hadley (1987: 10 1), drawing on his
", t\ difference betwe-en theory-driven and teacher-originated research is likelyto exist investigations of social institutions, states that there was 'very little evidence' that research
1I11!.d~l'r or not the field moves away from d.ependence o~ ~eo~~ of learning and cl~ser findings presented in standard journal or book form 'engage the minds of those in our
1 I! .... »ncs of practice (for example, van Lier 1991), as It 15 still important and entirely target groups or measurably affect. , , the policies of those practices of social institutions'.
It, II,NHHC that teachers should investigate what is of immediate concern to them. (In coo- s Here, for example, are Krashen and Terrell (1983: 1): 'At the time this book was
~~I';I'"ng such issues, which there is not sp~ce to do in this paper. it may be useful to written, our confidence in the Natural Approach [whichthey are therein commending to
- ... , ve the distinction between a theorv-in-use-r-a teachers own conceptual map of the teacherj was based primarily on underlying theory ... and the enthusiastic reactions of
1'1 !'(",~nJg-and a theorv of teaching as a more 'external' cognitive entity jointly possessed students and instructors.'
il'" ' -
" . If, .... field as a whole.I 9 The failure of professional training-in education and applied linguistics to validate
" I )[~on (1910)0: 8) stares: 'The term action research is usually credited to John Collier, this gap. and the associated lack of research (until recently] on the role of the practitioner
,1,1,,/,I,").' Others refer
~
JJ ~ ~ jone r
to the work o.fLewin as the
. 1953; Wallace 1987; Wann
of Indian Affairs from 1933 to 1945 (Corey
(19~6) l~cus
classicus. This beenh~ ~
as a decision-maker under non-eliminable conditions of uncertainty only exacerbates the
'gap' between the knowledge base for practice and practice itself.
urshed tradition in rural, agricultural. and commuruty development particularly In
I Lampert and Clark (1990) discuss the role of research on teacher thinking in teacher
\'~!" I
t I1"
lurd World and in the development of workplace democracy particularly in
' •
education. Drawing on Greeno (1990). they comment that the field should pay more
~I·"fl
"l1lavia
" (Elden 1979; Karlsen 1991). The general attitude (rather than the term careful attention
;1~l'lrI can be t~ed back at le~t to, Dewey (fo~ example. 1904)-cf. Cochran-Smith and
to how experts acquire whatever knowledge might be said to characterize their thinking
\ 'II'~ { J 'JCj{); t:'Je best recent historical survey 15 Holly (1991).
about the problems of practice.. , . The domain of knowledge that belongs to experts
\ , ,-IJnter (1":'89) states that action research implies the rejection of positivist con-
... is an environment containing resources, , . [within which one canlget around' ... as
l~"
I
, . .
IIfl~ of research. nus is no great imposition since much current social science is
ht,l""/) post-positivist. in t~e sense of mterpreo~'e ~t l~t (Rorty ~979; Taylor 1980~
well as have a sense of where there is to go. , . Our reading of cognitive theory and of the
research on teacher thinking suggests that the conventional academic pattern of
I~ l,hJ;l11:: 1983.:.: Newsome, in press). But a key point in this rejecnon IS the acceptance of
producing general principles from particular cases and delivering those principles to
11,:1,,,11' l-"aild lll:J,jerstandings of educational practice (obtain~d through. for exampl~, case novices may not be the most appropriate fonn for teacher education to take. (Lampert
<;ltl f I,
... '~) U beuae as desirable as, and more hkelv• to be obtained than. broadlv• applicable
_ - and Clark 1990: 22)
11,,1 +LlJZZ:JOllli..
~I"'. ;' he raartetr of how. from a practical point of view. such communities of action 10 See, for instance, Goswami and Stillman (1987) or Johnstone (1990) for examples
I"'"",.-Icnen cam. be established, nurtured, and defended in difficult times and circum- of such reports.
I
~t!'"
,.,4.;~ l j a ccenotex
-~
one. which it is not my objective to discuss here, whether or not any
. ..
11 Cf Cochran-Smith and Lytle (1990: 3) who propose a four-part typology of

c"I1,,/411 r~ err sugg~ti~ns could be made. One anonymous reVl~wer of ~ ~cle reacher-research formats: 'teachers' journals, brief and book-length essays, oral inquiry
. ,",t;;r.~ than. 'in Britain at least .. , after a decade or so of considerable acuvrrv ...
(.,,1/1 ,
processes, and classroom studies'. In addition, it is the contextualized nature of such
.,~r~ '~cm research] is at a low ebb ... (Schools I currentlv visit in one area ... do reports which makes them a more likely source of influence on teachers than standard
ll"'nf ' " .
"
It' ,I 1,..f1"tt: ~grt1 books:it is hard to see how teacher action resear~~ coul~ alter this ann- reports,
,1", ,+l"K.3l fac::\.' Nevertheless, Holly (1991: 143)comments that It ISaction researchers,
,~, "!I'•• ,.o:. ~ a sense of community' who become the "scufflers" in new change scenarios',
WI!jl'~; f£r. wisrnmg to be over-optimistic, I would concur that with school~ as with other REFERENCES
. " , ...VA"'~ :::t'.nn2eis often unlikelvto succeed unless group development IS first fostered Allwright, D, and K. M. Bailey. 1991. Focus on the LanguageClassroom. Cambridge:
In" 1 - • -
., ..i"/".e=.:C.l\: efforts are made on a united basis. (Cf Crookes 1989. for some related Cambridge University Press. ...
mp·
I - .
,•. ,j"I';U.it..-:·. 5U~esUOns.) Annstrong, D. G. 1980. 'Researchers' incentives and the dearth of practical research
t: . U!~i__ :::l am SL context, the topics investigated are likely to involve the social and results.' PeabodyJournal ofEducation 58/1: 55-60.

"
,< ~
c-ccimons facilitating or preventing SLA-maners concerning motivation. class Arg)Tis, C. and D. A, Schon. 1991_ 'Participatory action research and action science
[" II ......
Cllftl.;//>ir.u:t:L .rne role of non-standard languages. etc.e-rather than the less context- compared: a commentary' in W. F, Whyte (ed.]: Participatory Action Science. Newbury
d..,,':f~~ reamer of sequences of acquisition order in syntax,or the role of planning and Park, Calif.: Sage.
fT/I,p111r,.,r.J:I.:f:II ~ learning, Bazerman, C. 1987, 'Codifying the social scientific style: The APA Publication Manual
 140 ACTION RESEARCH FOR SECO:-iD LA:<GL'AGE TEACHERS GRAHAM CROOKES 141

as a behaviorist rhetoric' in J. S. Nelson. A. Megill, and D. N. McCloskey (eds.]: The E~·k~"I1.L. B. 1987. 'Confessions of a high school language teacher, or -why I
Rhetoric a/the Human Sciences. Madison, \Vis.: Universitv of Wisconsin Press. never (used to) read Foreign Language Annals".' Foreign Language Annals 2012:
Beasley, R. and L. Riordan. 1981. 'The classroom teacher as researcher: English in 265-6.
Australia 55: 36-41. Florio, S. and M. Walsh. 1981. 'The teacher as colleague in classroom research' in H. T.
Bennett, X and C. Desforges. 1985. 'Ensuring practical outcomes from educational Trueba, G. P. Guthrie, and K. H.-P. Au [eds.): Culture and the Bilingual Classroom:
research' in M. Shipman (00.): Educational Research: Principles, Policies, and Studies in Classroom Ethnography. Rowley, Mass.: Newbury House.
Practice. London: The Falmer Press. Gadamer, H. G. 1981. Reason in the Age of Science (trans. F. Lawrence). Cambridge,
Billups, L. H. and M. Rauth. 1987. 'Teachers and research" in V. Richardson-Koehler Mass.: MIT Press.
[ed.): Educators'Handbook:A Research Perspective. New York: Longman. Gebhard. J, G., S. Gaitan, and R, Oprandy. 1987. 'Beyond prescription: the student
Brandon, P. R. 1982. 'An Examination of an Interactive Approach -to Educational teacher as investigator.' Foreign Language Annals 20/3: 227-32.
Program Evaluation.' PhD thesis, University of Hawaii. GoodIad, J.t 1984. A PlaceWJ/,Ied School. New York: McGraw-HilI.
Brindley, G.1990. 'Towards a research agenda fortiESOL: Prospect 6/1: 7-26. Gore. J. M. and K. :\1. Zeich~~tion research and reflective teaching in pre-
Brumfit, C. and R. Mitchell. 1989. 'The language ctlIsroom as a focus for research' in service teacher educatiorra c~~om the United States.' Teaching and Teacher
C. Brurnfit and R. Mitchell (eds.): Research in the Language Classroom (ELT Docu- Education 712: 119-36.
ment 133: 3-15). London: Modern English Publications. Coswami, D. and P. R. Stillman (eds.]. 1987. Reclaiming the Classroom: Teacher
Bullock. R. H. 1987. 'A quiet revolution: the power of teacher research' in G. L. Bissex Research as an Agency for Change. Upper Montclair, VI.: Boynton-Cook.
and R. H. Bullock (eds.): Seeing for Ourselves. Portsmouth, KH: Heinemann. Greeno, J. G. 1990. Number Sense as Situated Knowledge in a Conceptual Domain
Carr, w. and S. Kemmis. 1986. Becoming Critical. London: The Falmer Press. (Report No. IRL90-00·14). Palo Alto, Calif, Institute for Research on Learning.
Chesler, ~1. A. 1990, 'Action research in the voluntarv sector. a case srudv of scholar- Habennas, J. 1972. Knowledge and Human Interests (trans. 1.J. Shapiro). London:
activist roles in self-help groups' in S. A. Wheldon. E. A_ Pepitone. and V. Abt (OOs.): Heinemann.
Advances in Field Theory. Newbury Park. Calif; Sage. Haherman, :11. and J, Sikula. 1991. 'Preface' in W. R. Houston (ed.): Handbook for
Cochran-Smith, M. and S. L. Lytle. 1990. 'Research on teaching and teacher research: Research on Teacher Education. New York: Macmillan.
The issues that divide.' Educational Researcher 1912: 2-11. Hadley, R. 1987. 'Publish and be ignored: proselytize and be damned' in C. G. Wenger
Cohen. D. K. 1988. 'Teaching practice: Plus que ca change .. .' in P. W. Jackson (ed.): [ed.): The Research Relationship. London: Allen and Unwin,
Contributing to Educational Change. Berkeley. Calif.: McCutchan. Hannen. M. and A. Naish. 1976. 'What theory cannot do for teachers.' Education for
Cohen. L. and L. Manion. 1985. Research Methods in Education (2nd edn.). London: Teaching 96/1: 12-19.
Croom Helm. Holly, P. 1991. 'Action research: The missing link in the creation of schools as centers of
Corey. S.:\1. 1953. Action Research to Improve School Practices. New York: Teachers inquiry' in A. Lieberman and L Miller (eds.): Staff Development for Education in the
College Bureau of Publications. Columbia Universitv. 'SQs. New York: Teachers College Press.
Crookes, G. 1989. 'Grassroots action to improve ESL programs: UH Working Papers in Janis, G. 1991. 'Research on teaching methodology: Its evolution and prospects' in B. F.
ESL 8/2: 45-61. Freed (ed.): Foreign Language Acquisition Research and the Classroom. Lexington,
Crookes, G. 1992. 'Theory format and SLA theory: Studies in Second Language Mass.: D. C. Heath.
Acquisition 11/4: 425-50. Johnstone. R. 1990. 'Action-research in the foreign languages classroom: Language
Cuban. L. 1988. 'Constancy and change in schools (1880s to the present)" in P. W. LeamingJoumal(UK) 111: 18-21.
Jackson (ed.): Contributing to Educational Chame, Berkelev. Calif.: McCutchan. Karlsen. J. I. 1991. 'Action research as method: reflections from a program for develop-
Dewey, J. 1904. The Relation of Theory to Practice-in Educati~n (3rd NNSE Yearbook. ing methods and competence" in W. F. Whyte (ed.]: Participatory Action Research
pt. 1). Chicago: University of Chicago Press. (pp. 143-58). Newbury Park, Calif.: Sage.
Ebbutt, D. 1985. 'Educational action research: some general concerns and specific Kelly, A. 1985. 'Action research: What is it and what can it do?' in R G. Burgess (ed.):
quibbles' in R. G. Burgess (ed.): Issues in Educational Research: Qualitative Methods. Issues in Educational Research: Qualitative Methods. London: Falmer Press.
Lewes: The Falmer Press. Kemmls. S, and R, :I1cTaggart (eds.). 1982. The Action Research Reader. Deakin:
Elden. M. 1979. 'Three generations of work democracy experiments in ~orway' in Deakin University Press.
C. Cooper and E. Mumford (eds.): The Quality of Work in Eastern and Western Kemmis, S. and R. :\1cTaggart. 1988. 'Introduction' in S. Kemrnis and R McTaggart
Europe. London: Associated Business Press. (eds.]: The Action Research Reader (3rd edn.). Deakin: Deakin University Press.
Elliott, J. 1987. 'Teachers as researchers' in M.l Dunkin (ed.): The International Klinghammer. S. J. 1987. 'Teacher as researcher.' English for Foreign Students in
Encyclopedia of Teaching and Teacher Education. Oxford: Pergamon. English-speaking Countries Newsletter (fESOL Interest Section) 5/1. 3.
Emmett, D. 1966. Rules, Roles and Relations. New York: St. Martin's Press. Kidder. R. :\1. 1991. 'Academic writing is convoluted, jargon-ridden. and isolated from
Ericson, D. P. 1986. 'On critical theory and educational practice- in K. A Sirotnik and the messy realities of the world: Chronicle ofHigher Education 37/20: B I-B3.
1. Oakes (eds.): Critical Perspective on the Organization and Improvement ofSchool- Krashen, S. D. and T. D. Terrell. 1983. The Natural Approach. Oxford: Pergamon
ing. Boston: Kluwer-Nijhoff. Press.
142 ACDON RESEARCH FOR SECO~D LA."GCAGE TEACHERS GRAHAM CROOKES 143

Kupfersmid, J. 1988. 'Improving what is published: a mode! in search of an editor.' Orem. R A. 1990. 'Theory, practice, research, and professionalization of the field of
American Ps\"chologist43/8: 635-42. Teaching English to Speakers of Other Languages' in J. E. Alatis (ed.): Linguistics,
Lampert, M. and C. M. Clark. 1990. 'Expert knowledge and expert thinking in teaching: Language Teaching, and Language Acquisition. Washington, DC: Georgetown
A response to Floden and Klinzing.' Educational Researcher 19/5: 21-3. University Press.
Lane, H. 1962. 'Experimentation in the language classroom: Guidelines and suggested Popham. W. J. 1991.·A slice of advice.' Educational Researcher 20/6: 18,35.
procedures for the classroom teacher.' Language Learning 12/2: 115-21. Ratcliffe, J. W. 1983. 'Notions of validity in qualitative research methodology.' Know-
Lather, P. 1986. 'Research as praxis.' Harvard Educational Review 56/3: 257-77. ledge: Creation, Diffusion, Utilization 512: 147-67.
LeCompte, M. D. and J. P. Goetz. 1982. 'Problems of reliabilitv and validitv in ethno- Ray. L C. 1987. 'Reflections on classroom research' in D. Gcswami and P. R Stillman
graphic research.' Review ofEducational Research 52: 31-60" . [eds.): Reclaiming the Classroom: Teacher Research as an Agency for Change. Upper
Lewin, K. 1946. 'Action research and minority problems,' Journal ofSocial Issues 2: 34- Montclair, Vt.: Bovnton/Cook.
46. Reason, P. and J. 'Rowan. 1981. 'Issues of validity in new paradigm research' in
Lightbown, P.:\-1. 1985. 'Great expectations: Second language acquisition research and P. Reason and J. Rowan (eds.): Human Inquiry. New York: Wiley.
classroom teaching.' Applied Linguistics 6:173-89. Rogers. E. M. 1986. 'Models of knowledge transfer: critical perspectives' in G. M. Beal,
Long. M. H. 1989. 'Second language classroom research and teacher education' in W. Dissanayake, and S. Konoshima (eds.); Knowledge Generation, Exchange, and
C. Brumfit and R. Mitchell (eds.): Research in the Language Classroom (ELT Docu- Utilization. Boulder, Colo.: Westview.
ment 133). London: Modem English PUblications. Rodgers, T. andJ. C. Richards. (n.d.). 'Teacher-based curriculum development: illusion
Lowry. C. D. 1908. The Relation of Superintendents and Principals to the Training and or realirv?' Ms.
Professional Development oftheir Teachers [Seventh yearbook of the National Society Rorty, R.' 1979. Philosophy and the Mirror of Nature. Princeton, NJ: Princeton
for the Study of Education, pt. 1). Chicago, Ill.:Uni-versity of Chicago Press. University Press.
McDonough. J. and S. McDonough. 1990. 'What's the use of research?' ELT Journal Sanford, ~. 1981. 'A model for action research' in P. Reason and J. Rowan (eds.):
44/2: 102-9. Human Inquiry: A Sourcebook ofNew Paradigm Research. London: Wiley.
Mclnryre, A. 1981. After Vinue: A Study ofMoral Theory. London: Duckworth. Schaefer. R J. 1967. The School as a Center ofInquiry. New York: Harper and Row.
Miranda, E. O. 1988. 'Broadening the focus of research in education: Journal of Schuster, J. A. and R. R. Yeo. 1986. 'Introduction' in 1. A. Schuster and R. R. Yeo (eds.):
Research and Development in Education 22/1: 23-38. The Politics and Rhetoric ofScientific Method: Historical Studies. Dordrecht: Reidel.
Mishler. E. G. 1990. 'Validation in inquiry-guided research; the role of exemplars in Shostak. R. J. 1987. 'Teachers' centres' in M. J. Dunkin (ed.): The International
narrative studies: Harvard Educational Review 60: 415-42. Encyclopedia of Teaching and Teacher Education, Oxford: Pergamon.
Mohr, M. M. 1987. 'Teacher-researchers and the study of the writing process' in Simon. H. A. 1957 . .\fodels ofMan. New York: Free Press.
D. Goswami and P, R. Stillman (eds.): Reclaiming the Classroom: Teacher Research as Simon, H. A. 1958. Administrative Behavior (2nd edn.). New York: Macmillan.
an Agency for Change. Upper Montclair, VI.: Boynton/Cook. Shavetson, R. J. 1988. 'Contributions of educational research to policy and practice:
Myers. M. 1985. The Teacher-Researcher: How to Study Writing in the Classroom. Constructing, challenging, changing cognition.' Educational Researcher 1717: 4-11.
Urbana.Ill.: National Council for Teachers of English. 22.
Netson.J. 5., A. McGill. and D. N. McCloskey. (eds. ~ 1987. The Rhetoric ofthe Human Sirolnik. K. A. and J. I. Goodlad. (eds.). 1988. School-University Pannerships in Action:
Sciences. Wisconsin: University of Wisconsin Press. Concepts, Cases,and Concerns. New York: Teachers College Press.
Newsome. G. (in press). Review: 'Becoming critical: education, knowledge. and action Sirotnik.. K. A. and J. Oakes. 1986. 'Critical inquiry for school renewal' in K. A, Sirotnik
research'. Canadian Journal ofEducation. and J. Oakes (eds.): Critical Perspective on the Orgaruuuion and Irnprovemeru of
Neubert. G. A. and J. B. Binko. 1987. 'Teach-probe-revise: a model for initiating class- Schooling. Boston: Kluwer-Nijhoff
room research.' The Teacher Educator 22/1: 9-17. Stenhouse, L. 1975. An Introduction to Curriculum Research and Development.
Nixon, J. 1981. A Teacher's Guide to Action Research. London: Grant Mcintyre. London: Heinemann.
:'iunan. D. 1989a. 'The teacher as researcher' in C. Brumfit and R Mitchell (eds.): Stern, H. H. 1983. Fundamental Concepts of Language Teaching. Oxford: Oxford
Research in the Language Classroom (ELT Document 133). London: Modem English University Press.
Publications. Taylor. C. i980. 'Understanding in human science.' Review ofMetaphysics 34: 25-38.
Nunan, D. 1989b. Understanding Language Classrooms: A Guide for Teacher-initiated Torbert, W. R. 1981. 'Why educational research has been so uneducationa1: The case for
Action. New York: Prentice-Hall. a new model of social science based on collaborative inquiry' in P. Reason and
Nunan. D. 1990. 'Action research in the language classroom' in J. C. Richards and J. Rowan (eds.): Human Inquiry. New York: John Wiley.
D. Nunan (eds.): Second Language Teacher Education. Cambridge: Cambridge Tyler, R. 'W. 1988. 'Utilization of research by practitioners in education' in P. W. Jackson
University Press. ~ (ed.): Contributing to Educational Change. Berkeley, Calif.: McCutchan.
Olsen. M. W. 1990. The teacher as researcher: a historical perspective' in :\1. W. Olsen Usher, R. and I. BI')·3Ot. 1989. Adult Education as Theory, Practice, and Research: The
(ed.): Opening the Door to Classroom Research. Newark. Del.: International Reading Captive Triangle. London: Routledge.
Association. van Ller, L. 1988. The Classroom and the Language Teacher. London: Longman.
144 ACTIO~ RESEARCH FOR SECONDLANGUAGETEACHERS

van Ller, L. 1991. 'Inside the classroom:learning procedures and teaching procedures.'
Applied Language Learning 2/1: 29-70.
van Lier, L. and K. Bailey. 1988. 'Innovation and action research in pre-service teacher
education.' Paper presentedat the 23rd annual TESOL convention, San Antonio,Tex.
Wallace, M. 1987. 'A historical review of action research: Some implications for the
education of teachers in their managerial role.' Journal ofEducationfOT Teaching 13/
2:97-115.
Wann, K.D. 1953. 'Action research in schools: Reviewof Educational Research 23/4:
337-45. i
Whitehead, J. and P. Lomax. 1987. 'Action research and the politics of educational \
'<,
knowledge: British Educational Research Journal 1312: 175-90.
Winter, R.~1988. Leamingfrom Experience: Principles and Practice in Action Research.
London: f almerPress.

»:
/

..
.'- "-

.. )

(
J