Validación de la propuesta aplicada

Action research (AR) is part of ‘a quiet methodological revolution’ towards qualitative research approaches that appeared in reaction to experimental and quantitative approaches (Denzin and Lincoln 1998:vii in Burns 2005:57). It has been defined as ‘simply a form of self-reflective enquiry undertaken by participants in social situations’ with the purpose of improving the rationality and understanding their own practices within their specific context (Carr and Kemmis 1986:162). A

85

parallel can be drawn between the latter authors and Burns (2005), who states that AR is perceived as a means towards creating better comprehension of a problem in a social situation and improving the quality of people’s interaction and practices within that context. According to Burns (2005), the central aspect of AR is the simultaneous focus on action and research. Action, in the view of Burns, requires an intervention in which participants are exposed to concrete strategies, processes or activities. This intervention ‘occurs in response to a perceived problem, puzzle or question’ (Burn 2005:58) that can emerge in myriad areas and contexts in applied linguistics and education, including school management or administration, curriculum implementation (Burns 2005), school improvement programme and policy development (Carr and Kemmis 1986), teaching methods, attitudes and values, continuing professional development of teachers (Cohen et al. 2011), classroom management, particular teaching areas (e.g. reading, oral skills), student behaviour, and motivation (Wallace 1998), among others. Cohen et al. (2011:344) point out that ‘action research can be used in almost any setting where a problem involving people, tasks and procedures cries out for solution, or where some change of feature results in a more desirable outcome’.

AR, as it is claimed, is the research method preferred when a social practice is the focus of the research (Carr and Kemmis 1986), where a key purpose ‘is to understand better some aspects of professional practice as a means of bringing about improvement’ (Richards 2003:24). To the best of my knowledge, this preference is because AR seeks not only to describe and understand a problem, but also to intervene in order to improve, involve participants, and interpret the results in the light of evidence provided by participants. Carr and Kemmis (1986:165) state that ‘the aim of involvement stands shoulder to shoulder with the aim of improvement’, since the people involved in the practice that is being studied

86

are to be involved in all the phases of the cycle of AR (which I mention in more detail in section 4.2.3). Zubber-Skerrit (1996:83, cited in Cohen et al. 2011:345) suggests that the goals of any AR project ‘are to bring about practical improvement, innovation, change or development of social practice’, and allow the practitioners to understand their practices. Carrying out AR ‘has the potential to be a major component in the continuing struggle to improve second language teaching’ (Crookes 1993:137).

Up to this point, I have outlined the numerous areas and contexts in which AR can be conducted, paying special attention to the field of applied linguistics and education in which improvement and involvement are expected through intervention. I would like now to connect AR more specifically to the benefits for those who are in the best position to conduct it in a classroom: the teachers. Dörnyei (2007:191) argues that ‘the most important tenet in action research concerns the close link between research and teaching as well as the research and the teacher’. Many scholars (e.g. Burns 2005; Carr and Kemmis 1986; Dörnyei 2007) have also acknowledged AR as a means for teachers to become agents rather than recipients of information about language learning and teaching. Burns (2005), for example, provides a list of benefits in terms of the skills that teachers develop when conducting AR. These skills help teachers become responsible for their own development; that is, they are the agents for change and improvement in their practice. According to Burns (2005:68) through AR teachers research real and puzzling situations; implement action where and when they think improvements are possible; make improvement through action and reflection; and recognise and translate evolving ideas into action monitor and evaluate the effects of the action taken, with a view to continuing improvement, among others. Ferrance (2000:1)

87

also includes some benefits and powerful justification for teachers to immerse in AR, such as:

 Work best on problems that they have identified for themselves

 Become more effective when they are encouraged to examine and assess their own work and then consider ways of working differently

 Help each other when working collaboratively

 Help each other in their professional development by working together.

From benefits mentioned by Ferrance (2000), we can observe a tendency to define AR as an activity that is carried out solely in collaboration with other teachers, as many other scholars suggest (e.g. Burns 2005; Patton 2002). Dörnyei (2007:191), for example, argues that ‘action research is conducted by or in cooperation with other teachers’. However, as Cohen et al. (2011:348) propose, ‘it is possible for action research to be an individualistic matter as well’. Although Burns (2010:Ways of doing AR section, para. 1) states her preference for AR in collaboration with others, she acknowledges that it is likely to notice ‘different ways that teachers have been involved in AR’ (see also Burns 2009). According to Burns (2010:Ways of doing AR section, para. 1), ‘[o]ne approach is for individual teachers to undertake their own projects either through assignments for credited programs or for their own professional development’. Whitehead (1985:98) explicitly writes about AR in individualistic terms. According to Whitehead (ibid), a teacher can ask herself or himself about a problem observed, the possible solutions, the manner to direct the solutions, and the evaluation of outcomes to take subsequent action.

Taking this into account and considering my personal (and, so far, individual) interest in carrying out this study in my university, I conducted research ‘individually’. That is, I was the only researcher involved in the study. Nevertheless,

88

I also think that there could be an inherent collaboration from colleagues, teachers administrators, students, parents and, perhaps, public officials (Gebhard 1999; Walsh 2001), even though they may not be directly participating in the research. The only requirement, in this aspect, for AR to be successful is to inform the participants ‘that they are part of the planning decisions and that they can contribute to the quality of their education by their willingness, for example, to be videotaped’ (Gebhard 1999:62). In that way, I believe that the cooperation in this research came from the authorities that conferred permission to do this research in my university, the teachers who agreed to be interviewed, and the participants approving to be interviewed and observed, as well as accepting my intervention.