PARQUE URBANO

The function and purpose of action research and traditional research is different from each other. One of the major differences is the position of the researcher in relation to the objects of research. In traditional research, a researcher with limited knowledge of the object explores or investigates for the benefit of other people. In action research, practitioners investigate the issue which is related to their practice and closely work with colleagues to solve the problems of immediate concern. The essence of action research is, therefore, practical improvement with the intention of continuing these improvements through research and process of action.

The treatment of theory is also different in action and traditional research. Action research recognises the importance of generating theory from immediate action, as Somekh (1994, p. 367) argues that theories regarding this research are intertwined into action and research:

The epistemology which underpins action research methodology is distinctive in that it rejects the notion that knowledge can be decontextualized from its context of practice.

In contrast, there is objectivity in traditional research, as there is no relation between the researcher and the object of research; therefore, the researcher is hardly affected by the things s/he is researching. On the other hand, professional development and positive change are the main purposes of action research. McNiff (2002, p. 19) describes the role of traditional research, ‘In traditional epistemologies, practice tends to be seen as something separate from practitioners. In action research, the practitioner generates theories by reflecting on his practice.’

A practitioner-researcher, as called in action research, addresses the issues of immediate concern and solves them in the light of action-informed-theories, whereas traditional research is not suitable for context based research as it does not support living theory as a way forward to solve immediate issues. Schön (1983, p. 42) discusses the traditional research and its inability to address the important issues of research:

We can readily understand, therefore, not only why uncertainty, uniqueness, instability, and value conflict are so troublesome to the positivist epistemology of practice, but also why practitioners bound by this epistemology find themselves caught in a dilemma. Their definition of rigorous professional knowledge excludes phenomena they have learned to see as central to their practice. And artistic ways of coping with these phenomena do not qualify, for them, as rigorous professional knowledge.

On the other hand, uncertainty, uniqueness, instability, and value-conflict are the factors which action research addresses as he further elaborates:

Let us search, instead, for an epistemology of practice implicit in the artistic, intuitive process which some practitioners do bring to situations of uncertainty, instability, uniqueness, and value conflict...Often we cannot say what it is that we know… our knowing is ordinarily tacit, implicit in our patterns of action and in our feel for the stuff with which we are dealing. It seems right to say that our knowing is in our action. (Schön, 1983, p. 40)

Freire also emphasises local knowledge, which is generated through the experience of people (Freire, 1972, p. 68)

It is not our role to speak to the people about our own view on them, but rather to dialogue with the people about their view and ours. We must realize that their view of the world, manifested variously in their action, reflects their situation in the world (original emphasis).

Valuing the practitioner’s knowledge is seen as important for educational development which is reflected in Freire’s concept of praxis:

…men's [sic] activity consists of action and reflection: it is praxis; it is transformation of the world. And as praxis, it requires theory to illuminate it. Men's [sic] activity is theory and practice; it is reflection and action (Freire, 1972, p. 96).

Hence, the action research approach helps in reducing the gap between theory and practice because it requires investigating and facilitating teacher praxis.

Action research can bring change and improvement in three ways: it brings improvement in practice, understanding of that practice, and the improvement of a situation where the practice takes place (Carr and Kemmis, 1986). Traditional research has limited scope for positive change through action. It relies on existing theories for its application whereas in action research, theories are drawn through action and reflection on the action. Moreover, action research gives an opportunity to plan and act in a flexible way to suit the commitment to change, whereas traditional research has a limited role for adopting change. Having presented the comparison of the two research approaches, I hereby choose action research. In the following section, I further elaborate the rationale for its choice by illustrating it in the light of the aims of the study.

4.3.1 Rationale behind the choice of suitable methodology

The study aims at the practical improvement in language teaching and learning at large Remedial classes at UoSJP. It also involves understanding of the pedagogical issues at UoSJP and to form an intervention strategy for better learning outcomes. To achieve these objects, I have divided the research objectives into three main stages:

• To understand the teaching practice at UoSJP through empirical and qualitative analysis (Reconnaissance);

• To form an intervention strategy in the light of the reconnaissance and implement it in collaboration with the colleagues;

• To evaluate implementation through an interpretative and qualitative approach, and to unfold the events through a narrative on action and reflection.

Approaching these objectives will require implementing and managing change through the research process. The change, due to teacher’s practice, can include many things like teaching practice, self-awareness, knowledge, beliefs, attitudes, and understanding (Bailey, 1992; Jackson 1992). Therefore, the choice of research method has to be based on a framework that can fulfil these requirements. Moreover, the research is based on the educational context, which includes the analyses of existing educational practice and forming an action that can transform and improve pedagogies. Therefore action research is an appropriate methodology for this kind of research as Corey’s (1953) definition of action research supports my choice of it in the present research:

…that is undertaken by educational practitioners because they believe that by so doing they can make better decisions and engage in better action (in Noffke 1997, p. 316-317).

McNiff (2002, p. 56) also describes action research as the process of transformation, which offers flexibility and adaptability along with helping a systematic enquiry and implementation of action. She describes action research as 'a systematic process to observe, describe, plan, act, reflect, evaluate, modify.’ Thus, keeping the fluidity of action research methods, I hope to plan to form an intervention strategy that may accommodate changes in the pedagogical approaches through the informative process of the action research cycle. According to McNiff (2002) many researchers consider action research as educational research due to its role in its development of learning and growth of education; unlike traditional research, action research deals 'within the real-life experience of real people' (McNiff, 2002, p. 16). Carr and Kemmis also (1986, p. 99) believe in the ‘practical value-

laden’ approach of educational research, which ‘must be able to confront questions about practical educational values and goals’.

By adopting the methodology of action research, I hope to develop theories based on practice and provide evidence for their reliability following a process of validation. The study is guided by ‘critical pedagogy’ (Freire, 1972, p. 150-151) where I look at all sides of the situation from a critical perspective by adopting dialectic processes to reveal and apprehend reality. For Freire (1972), problematisation is not only inseparable from the act of knowing but also inseparable from concrete situations. The approach to problematizing can lead to developing as a critical thinker by looking at the situation as a living process rather than static entity.

Hence, I hope to develop theories as I investigate, act and reflect on the action with the intention of influencing learning and teaching through the process of action research. Action research provides a practical framework to address the problematic situation systematically, which traditional research cannot adequately provide. Thus, action research is a suitable methodology for this study in empowering the researcher for practical improvement and professional growth. My claim of original knowledge will also come from the practice and reflection on the fieldwork and from the preparation of the intervention strategy for the fieldwork.

After establishing the need and choice of research methodology, I define action research in the following section to further elaborate its various dimensions which are relevant to the present study.