FUENTES DE INFORMACIÓN

Implementing action research in higher education is rather challenging since it is a fast-changing environment that involves a substantial number of pressures and constraints. As academics, we must be proficient and expert in pedagogical issues, enhance students’ learning experience and help them to acquire employability skills. Finally, we should contribute to new knowledge.

Conducting action research and teaching in the same institution raises several ethical dilemmas. First, the participants are usually our students and although their participation in the research is voluntarily it is likely to overpower them, especially freshmen students and make them comply with our demands. Research in social psychology (Asch, 1955; Milgram, 1974) suggests that

107 humans are in many cases reluctant to disobey to authority or group pressure because they are afraid of social consequences. However, this is not a unique characteristic of action research but is something common of most research frameworks.

Although there are several advantages of action research mentioned above, its disadvantages cannot be ignored: the quotes below are from Denscombe (2007, p.131) and the analysis is my personal reflection and action that was taken to deal with the limitations or as mention below- challenging characteristics of action research methodology. “The necessary involvement of the practitioner limits the scope and scale of research. The “work–site” approach affects the representativeness of the findings and the extent to which generalizations can be made based on the results”.

It could be argued that educational action research that aligns with the interpretative research paradigm focuses on identifying, understanding and solving a problem in researchers working environment. Therefore, purposeful or convenient sampling is commonly used from researchers, as they cannot find the ideal participants for their study. I do not think that this is a limitation of action research methodology, but going back to action research definition I would support that Denscombre here states that this is an inner characteristic and refers to the nature of action research. Regarding the generalization of the findings, one could argue that research studies that apply qualitative methodology (case studies, ethnographies, action research) have a different research purpose: to showcase a specific problem and share pedagogical insights that can contribute to further research. Generalization is a powerful characteristic of quantitative research, which was not appropriate for the aim of this project. Also, autonomy as a multi-facet phenomenon cannot be easily measured in a predetermined valid way. “The nature of the research is constrained by what is permissible and ethical within the workplace setting” (Denscombe, 2007, p.131).

Conducting research in your workplace and at the same time being an insider researcher raises many ethical dilemmas. Specifically, issues that are related

108 to power and the policies of the workplace need to be addressed. However, complying with the ethical requirements of your workplace is not a limitation that is being posed only for action researchers, but it is a typical procedure that needs to be followed by both insiders and outsider researchers according to BERA protocol. Also, negotiating access to the research participants, confidentiality and anonymity are being restricted by the research setting either this is researcher’s workplace or not especially for qualitative research studies where researchers need to spend a considerable amount of time within the setting and with participants. (Patton, 2002; Shenton and Hayter, 2004). Particularly, the College I did not face restrictions that caused limitations to my research, on the contrary, I was very welcomed and supported to do research and innovate. After getting a signed permission by the Head of the English Department who was informed about the nature and the duration of the research, I gained access to participants as an instructor.

Also, McLaughlin (2004) states that doing work-based research creates: “issues of identity, power, status, language and communication”. During this study, all stakeholders (researcher/instructor, participants and Head of the English Department) were informed about the detailed process of the research project and their role was clarified. Namely:

Head of the English Department: Approved the ESL curriculum, signed a consent form and gave me access to the participants.

Participants: Adults learners who signed a voluntary consent form to participate to in the study. Their grades did not affect by their participation.

Researcher/instructor: Designed and applied the new curriculum for writing.

Since stakeholders did not get involved in the projects as co-researchers or there are not major issues of identity and power in this study

I collaborated with each student individually to reassure that had equal opportunities to participate to this project: access to the web at home, mobile technology, familiarization with Google Drive, the skills to complete the

109 feedback form. So, I can reassure that no participant is marginalized and all voices are included. I tried to see “learning through the eyes of the students”, (Hattic, 2009, p.22). Although this project does not fall into the category of PAR, I took into consideration group dynamics to deal effectively with Cooke’s and Kathari’s criticism (2001), namely “the tyranny of participation” or “group tyranny”. Finally, I am aware that some students may hesitate to communicate me any difficulties or problems associated with peer interaction during the project.

“Ownership of the research process becomes contestable within the framework of the partnership relationship between practitioner and the researcher”. (Denscombe, 2007, p.130)

Although I would agree that in participatory action research projects in which participants act as co-researchers and contribute to the development of new knowledge sometimes the balance between the researcher and the participant might be not clear. However, this is an individual action research project where participants did not take part in researching and collecting data so there is no issue with the ownership. “Action research tends to involve an extra burden of work for the practitioners, particularly at the initial stages before any benefits feedback into improved effectiveness” (Denscombe, 2007, p.130).

According to Cain and Harris (2013) and Patthey and Thomas- Spiegel (2013), AR can be time-consuming, face threatening, unpaid, and loaded with ethical issues, which may threaten the aims of any AR project. My perspective is different. It is true that conducting action research and teaching full-time might require much more time and workload than conducting any other research as an outsider. However, it can be argued that teachers should not act only as knowledge implementers but they have to use classroom as labs to test educational theories and generate new knowledge (Borg, 2010). The dual role of teacher/researcher is challenging, but at the same time it is a valuable chance for self-reflection, professional development and innovation.

110 “Reflection is a current vogue term used widely and often loosely. There is certainly greater need for clarity and precision in the use of this term in teacher education and research more broadly. The distinction between reflection and description is often not fully understood. Reflection can generate into anecdotal description” (Hitchcock and Hughes, 2002, p.30).

Kant stated “sapere aude” (dare to know), knowledge construction is a major characteristic of research. Action research, within education is an attractive option for teachers and school stakeholders since it offers beneficial opportunities for those working within the teaching profession to improve educational practices though the construction of new knowledge and enhance the lives of children (Mills, 2011; Stringer, 2008). Also, action research can be seen as an extension of the new role of teachers as a reflective lifelong teaching practitioner who takes the responsibility of his professional development and collaborates effectively with all stakeholders in the educational community (Holter & Frabutt, 2012; Perrett, 2003). In teacher’s action research, practitioners should adopt a deep approach to learning and critically examine their own practice. However, practitioners’ research was criticized for low quality of contribution to academic knowledge (soft-science) since it was argued that teachers/practitioners are not proper researchers, do not have the necessary skills to engage in meaningful inquiry and do not always follow a systematic ‘observe-reflect-act’ process (Stringer, 2008). This criticism is well worth careful consideration as it concerns teachers’ ability to reflect on research findings. Research suggests that teachers do not see themselves as researchers, are struggling to form research questions and analyze data. (O’Connor, Greene and Anderson, 2006). To deal with these issues effectively, Universities have started to invest in action research-based programs training programs for teachers to equip them with the necessary skills so that “each degree candidate designs, executes, reflects upon, and disseminates an original, context-specific action research project” (Holter & Frabutt, p. 258).

111 capacity to reflect, I report that both my M.A degree and my MPhil were research based and I attended research methodology courses and seminars in educational research. Concerning the above criticism on teacher’s capacity to reflect I believe that each person’s capacity to reflect is different and depends not only on years of experience but on inner motivation as well. As a comparatively novice teacher and not having the experience of leadership and management in Higher Education, I took into consideration suggestions of critical friends during dissemination of research findings and I acknowledged the contribution through critical discussions with my supervisor and the Head of the English Department of the College. Finally, I believe that I am in the same line of thinking with McNiff’s and Whitehead’s (2006) position: “There is urgent need for practitioners in other professions to make their stories of learning public so that others may learn from them” (p. 234). Being consistent to this belief, I disseminated the findings of my study in a few different educational seminars, workshops and conferences that I have mentioned in this chapter.