An INTRODUCTION to Praxial Research

This chapter is a general introduction to the study in the following order:Significance of the study, the research questions, research assumptions, the definition of key terms, and the background and setting.

Significance of StudyThere are three main purposes of this study:1. To improve classroom instruction through inquiry and understanding;2. To merge classroom instruction with Design-Based Research;3. To encourage student participation and classroom intersubjectivity.In the current post-method era of Language Pedagogy, there exist gaps between theory and teaching practice in the classroom (Kumaravadivelu, 2006). It is becoming more apparent that improving the language classroom will rely on the pro-active efforts of both teacher and students. Such a process essentially requires teacher practitioner research which encourages students to participate reflectively along with the teacher as they attempt to merge theory and practice in a contextual setting (Brown, 1992; Schon, 1987; Wells, 1999). In this study, the research process involves collecting data that can be analyzed interpretively during the instructional activities. Using Allwright’s Exploratory Practice as Design-based Research, this study will focus on improving the classroom environment through reflection and analysis in a natural setting where classroom activities are used to generate data (Allwright & Hanks, 2009; Brown, 1992). The purpose is to merge research into the classroom setting without interfering or impinging on normal classroom activities.

The significance of such an approach is evident in the need for teachers to conduct their own classroom research so as to improve their own classroom practice.It is generally accepted that language teaching has entered a post-method period characterized by theories which are abstract and difficult to conceptualize in the classroom (Allwright & Hanks, 2009; Johnson, 2004; Kumaravadivelu, 2006).Another reason for the divide between theory and practice relates to the nature of positivistic and rationalistic research that has dominated Second Language Acquisition (SLA), and the importance on separating language competence and language performance (Johnson, 2004; Marchenkova, 2005). In this study, language competence and language performance are viewed from a relativistic point of view, where competence and performance are variables that should not be separated, and analysis or assessment is performed dynamically by the instructor as researcher (Swain, Kinnear, & Steinman, 2011). Classroom research conducted by teachers is becoming a necessary requirement for professional development, but more importantly

such research can be shared with colleagues in a manner which has never been done before.While quantitative data may be suitable for school administrators, classroom teachers are in need of qualitative data that examines classroom practice from the view of the participants. For example, teachers may view standardized tests scores and discover that one particular school is achieving consistently higher marks, and be inclined to rationalize that the particular school is doing something significantly different, only to discover qualitatively that students at the particular school were involved in language learning activities outside the school which had little to do with their classroom setting.It is a common practice in Thailand, for teachers to visit schools which are performing well, but those visits are usually characterized by tours of the facilities and a quick glance into the classrooms. Significant substantive examination does not take place, but if teachers had their own qualitative research available to share with visiting colleagues, better understanding would lead to improvement in the classrooms. Obviously there is clear significance to teacher generated qualitative research that can be easily accessed.This researcher is not suggesting that quantitative studies have no value or purpose, but there is a significant need for interpretive based teacher driven research that can uncover the reality behind the numbers. When talking to students and their parents, teachers are able to learn fascinating anecdotes that aid them in understanding the unique characteristics that are helping or hindering their students’ progress. Making that data available to other teachers who are experiencing the same kinds of problems are what make this study significant. Instead of English competitions highlighting a school’s “accomplishments,” these gatherings can be used for collaboration, where teacher generated research can be easily passed on to other teachers. Imagine being able to share experiences with other teachers from other schools. This is the significance of teacher driven research, an outgrowth of phenomenological or heuristic research that allows us to link practice with research.Even if collaboration isn’t accomplished, the significance of research into the experiences and beliefs of those in the classroom is immediately discernible to the participants. During the pilot phase of this study, the researcher uncovered the story of a second year student from a bicultural family where English was not spoken in the home. This student had learned English along with her Thai classmates, yet her English skills advanced through primary and secondary while her classmates struggled with English. When she was asked if she could explain how she was able to speak English fluently and her Thai classmates couldn’t, she matter-of-factly said that her friends were Thai, and weren’t expected to speak English. Sure, they had all done the grammar exercises in class, but no one spoke during class, but because the others assumed she was speaking English at home, she took on the persona. Her university classmates, as well as the instructor has always assumed that

she spoke English at home, but only she spoke English in her family, and this bit of information encouraged the others to view language acquisition differently.The more often teachers speak to students about their prior English learning experiences, the closer they get to understanding the complications associated with language learning, and the more obvious the correlations become between speaking skills and time spent with expert speakers. This inquiry in itself is research, the kinds of research teachers should be conducting in their classrooms. The significance in such research becomes clearly obvious, but gaining this type of data takes hours of time. The need to find a research model that combined class time with instructional activities led this instructor to Dick Allwright’s Exploratory Practitioner research, along with other forms of classroom based inquiry, which allows instructors to use classroom time to conduct research. While some may consider this research to be insignificant because of its contextual nature, together with other similar explorations into local settings the research can be collected and used for theorizing. After identifying the puzzle, Allwright suggests reflecting on the puzzle (see Table 5) which will be completed in chapter two’s literature review.

Research Questions1. In what ways can Exploratory Practice and Problem-posing encourage student participation?2. In what ways can Exploratory Practice and Problem-posing encourage classroom intersubjectivity?Research Assumptions

This study is intended to be fluid with a flexible structure that suits the researcher’s assumptions which support an “inductive style with a focus on individual meaning, and the importance of rendering the complexity of a situation (adapted fromCreswell, 2007). M. Crotty, in The Foundations of Social Research: Meaning and Perspective in the Research Process, identifies three constructivist assumptions:1. Meanings are constructed by human beings as they engage with the world they are interpreting.2. Humans engage with their world and make sense of it based on their historical and social perspectives.3. The basic generation of meaning is always social, arising in and out of interaction with a human community (Crotty, 1998).The researcher in this study accepts a Social Constructivist and Pragmatic world view, and intends to answer the research questions qualitatively. Specifically, the researcher holds assumptions that exploring and understanding the actions and experiences of the participants in a contextual classroom, with collaboration and reflection will lead to the

improvement of instructional design. It is inevitable that the participants will develop their own meanings, and draw their own conclusions.

The goal of the research is “to rely as much as possible on the participants’ world views of the situation being studied” (Creswell, 2009, p. 9). A social constructivist perspective then views the instructor as a facilitator of knowledge, and puts emphasis on the learner and participation. While traditional language pedagogy has produced various methods based on popular learning theories, few of those theories or methods are based on constructivist views of learning and meaning. In this case, classroom activities are viewed for their role in getting students to participate meaningful activities. Pragmatically, the researcher is concerned with understanding the issues contextually, and the actions and experiences that are involved in a situated classroom.Design-based studies that focus on improving instructional activities by examining the activity in context are needed. To improve practice, Design-Based Research (DBR), the classroom environment can be improved upon. It is also assumed that many academic based language classrooms that focus on tasks, projects and problem-solving do so at the expense of meaning. In other words, teachers assume that by completing a task-based project the students will reach the proper outcomes, but this researcher is making the assumption that making and constructing meaning must be part of the task which takes place through dialogue with More Knowledgeable Others (MKO). Learning in groups is a necessary means of collaboration, but there must be someone available, who can facilitate meaningful dialogue. Along with the assumptions related to ontology, this study holds assumptions related to language learning as well:

1. Language is acquired through meaningful participation;2. Learning ‘everyday’ knowledge and ‘academic’ knowledge is

significantly different;3. Student-Teacher relationships are vital to language acquisition.

In this study limited English proficient students are required to learn academic content in the target language, with little or no emphasis on language structure or grammar. Few of these students have had the opportunity to use English in a social setting where meaningful situations occur, and creating activities which are authentic is proving to be more difficult to accomplish. While Task-based approaches have tried to create meaningful learning, they tend to be focused on the task with meaning as a byproduct. This is problematic for both teacher and student, and solving the dilemma requires an understanding between the participants. In most language classrooms where a native English speaker is with non-native speakers, the cultural divides create significant misunderstandings which must be overcome in order for learning to take place.It is the general assumption of the researcher then, that because English Language Teaching (ELT) and Language Pedagogy are outgrowths of Second Language Acquisition (SLA), Psychology, Anthropology, Cognitive science

and a host of others fields, traditional research is not directly applicable to a contextualized classroom. Within Language Pedagogy there is no methodical consensus or approach, and ELT professionals are dependent on research that has a non-Education focus, but it doesn’t take a scientist to explain that few language learners, if given the choice would choose to learn a language in a classroom. This is the dilemma that English language learners and English language teachers face, a task with no clear theory or direction. Kumaravadivelu and others suggest that the ELT profession has entered a post-method era, and that theory and practice don’t mesh (Kumaravadivelu, 2006; Allwright & Hanks, 2009). Allwright and others take the predicament further and suggest that research based on traditional views of science don’t mesh with the classroom (Allwright & Hanks, 2009; Johnson 2004; Wells, 1999). Regardless, Kumaravadivelu suggests that ELT look to research in the areas of Language, Learning and Teaching to guide our instructional activities (Kumaravadivelu, 2006).Having been fortunate to teach in Thailand for nearly 20 years, this researcher has recognized a few trends, and it is this researcher’s makes the assumption that qualitative data is more reliable than quantitative as they relate to the classroom. During a teaching assignment in an English Programme at a primary school, the researcher noticed a proclivity for his students’ language abilities to resemble the bell curve: a small percentage being productive users; a majority as occasional users, while another lesser percentage as limited users, but he wasn’t sure why. The notion of conducting research to find the underlying reasons seemed excessive, when getting to know the students and their parents were the first step.

The teacher discovered that the three levels directly corresponded to the time students spent in after school tutorials. Intrigued, the teacher met with his students’ first-grade and subsequent teachers to discover that those groupings were accurate groupings that described that class since their first day of school. That process was research. While the assessment was not intended to be scientific, it illustrates the importance of qualitative data, an area that has been neglected in the field of Language Pedagogy and ELT research. If it wasn’t for the extensive time the teacher spent talking to students and parents, he would not have discovered that the fluent speaking students had been participating in authentic target language dialogues with native speakers since they were small children. Until then, teachers had assumed that student skills were developed after subsequent years in the English-only classroom, and those who couldn’t use English must have learning deficiencies. Once the ‘learning phenomenon’ was uncovered, there was little need to consult a scientific theory on second language acquisition to affirm the suspension that language learners need to have meaningful interactions with expert speakers. Those bilingual students had gained their skills outside the classroom and brought their skills inside the classroom, and those learners who did not spend time with native English speakers, remained limited proficient speakers from one subsequent grade level to the next.

As a teacher practitioner in the field of Education, this instructor began to see the importance of viewing the classroom socially.

Definition of TermsDesign-based research examines complex social interactions in practice leading to improved praxis (Brown, 1992).Praxis is the process practitioners go through when trying to merge theory and practice. In the field of Education, as in other public service industries, there is a need for research to be conducted from a first-person point of view. Third-person classroom research has a tendency to alter the classroom setting, suggesting theory that cannot be conceptualized in the classroom, causing a gap between theory and practice. In the field of language learning, this gap is enormous, and those with a Relativistic worldview are merging research, theory and practice in hopes of creating praxis.Social Activity theory suggests more than collaboration, it implies a relationship between language, culture, identity and learning that is interdependent.Based on the views of Vygotsky, learning is mediated through cultural artifacts with language being the most essential of all. Cultural artifacts are anything developed in a culture from pens to computers, and Vygotsky examined how individuals use these artifacts to develop as learners. The theory contends that learning or development can be divided into spontaneous learning which occurs between the learner and object being learned, and higher cognitive learning which requires a cultural element which mediates the learning. In this sense learning should be viewed contextually and socially, and in these moments during meaningful interactions learning takes place. In other words, the learner is not like a computer that processes information on its own, but is constructing their own knowledge based on the contextual interaction.Whether a student is interacting with a text, or watching a video, or speaking with a teacher, learning takes place because the learner’s mind engages with another object (Bernat, 2008). This focus on the interaction and not on the learner’s mind is what separates cognitive scientists but is beyond the scope of this study. Regardless, the emphasis on interaction allows teachers to become involved in the research process (Johnson, 2004; Wells, 1999).Heteroglossia is a reaction to formalist views of Language which viewed language in a closed-system; Bakhtin viewed Language as contextual utterances between individuals which relied on historical and cultural meanings (Marchenkova, 2005). Formalists see language as a fixed and closed structure that has certain. The term heteroglossia refers to Language as an open-system that includes many different voices as in any typical daily conversation. To view language, like an isolated sentence without reference to people speaking was unusable toBakhtin. In other words, a formalist will analyze a random sentence with disregard for the participants. For example, Chomsky stated that language

could only be analyzed by separating competence and performance, creating a closed-system that could be analyzed; Chomsky had no interest in dialogue, and in the social setting (Chomsky, 2006). Bakhtin, on the other hand analyzed language in its natural state, as an opensystem, with actual speakers in constant dialogue and interaction in different contexts, or what he referred to as heteroglossia (Johnson, 2004; Marchenkova, 2005). This is a significant departure from positivist or rationalist views of language as a closed system with important research implications. Dialogue, on its surface is simply interaction between participants, but on a deeper level dialogue involves intent, relationships, and cultural idiosyncrasies.

Intersubjectivity and Dialogue: When viewing language as heteroglossia, researchers must consider the dynamic relationships in a classroom which are contingent on intersubjectivity and dialogue. Intersubjectivity suggests a mutual understanding or acceptance between people, which are difficult to develop or obtain in the standard classroom where the teacher is regarded as the lead authority, and where there are large classrooms. Without intersubjectivity within a classroom, dialogue can become limited and strained and restrict development (Wells, 1999).Dynamic Assessment: If teaching practitioners are going to conduct research in their own classes, a suitable form of assessment should be used. Dynamic Assessment is a process-oriented form of assessment that accepts the values and beliefs of the context as a social activity (Swain, Kinnear, & Steinman, 2011). The instructor or assessor can mediate the process to encourage certain outcomes which becomes a suitable tool for teachers as researchers. In this study, dynamic assessment takes place lesson as part of the instruction.BackgroundThe interest in learning a second language has become a worldwide phenomenon. In Thailand, which is a member of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN), students learn English as a second (ESL) or foreign (EFL) language on a compulsory basis. Many hope to use English in their future employment as ASEAN has adopted English as its official lingua-franca, but most of those students will never use English in a meaningful context in or out of the classroom while others may even become bilingual. There are disagreements as to why this occurs, and how to approach the dilemma. In relation to this, ThaiInternational colleges are experiencing a unique contextual setting in which limitedEnglish proficient learners must learn academic content in English; some students become proficient while others do not. How researchers approach this dilemma is varied, but unless teachers and students are involved in the research process, society may never uncover the discrepancies. Whether in Thailand, California, or around the world, learning and teaching a language directly relates to the contextual setting, and the intersubjectivity or mutual understanding between participants. In dealing with contextual issues,

Language pedagogy has evolved significantly, and will continue to, but for the fraught teacher and learner in the classroom, language pedagogy exhibits a huge gap between theory and practice.For the struggling language learner, there are significant differences between learning a Language and learning Academic content, theoretical concepts formulated and discussed extensively by both Halliday and Cummins (Schleppegrell, 2004). The implications being that instructional activities must be significantly varied to accommodate the differences between, what Cummins labeled Basic Interpersonal Communicative Skills (BICS), and Cognitive Academic Language Proficiency (CALP). This is especially true for learners in a non-English speaking environment where learners lack language opportunities, and seldom acquire BICS that will help them construct knowledge and succeed at an International college. The significance in the two distinctions has drawn the interest of Krashen and Brown (2007), who analyzed and presented a framework for studying CALP by categorizing it with having two components:

1. Academic language: complex syntax, academic vocabulary, & complex discourse.

2. Academic content: subjects such as algebra, history, literature & etc. Their paper, while intended to deepen understanding of academic proficiency, and to encourage research and discussion, is silent about classroom intersubjectivity. Many in the field of Language Pedagogy such as Allwright, Johnson, Kumaravadivelu, Marchenkova, and Wells all suggest that the ELT profession has entered a post-method era, where there has been a gap between theory and practice. The gap exists in part, due to ontological preferences that influence the nature of research designs which traditionally view language in a closed system, rather than in an open system like a classroom. Regardless, Kumaravadivelu acknowledges three distinct categories of methods that teachers will inevitably employ in a language classroom: Language-Centered, Learner-Centered and Learning-Centered methods. As he explains, Language-Centered methods focus on the quality and aspects of the target language; Learner-Centered approaches focus on the needs of the learner as in an English for Specific Purposes course; but in a Learning-Centered approach the learning process is the focus, which includes all the dynamics of a classroom including the atmosphere of the class to the relationship between teacher and students (Kumaravadivelu, 2003; 2006). In this study, the teacher as researcher takes a Learning-Centered approach to examine and reflect on the process to improve classroom practice by means of Design-Based Research (DBR) (Brown, 1992). Within the DBR model, research guides the development of the classroom activities (Pardo-Ballester & Rodríguez,2009). A main instrument in the research process is reflection which is conducted by the participants, in this case instructor and students, to include the researcher as instructor (Schon, 1987). This study is a snap-shop of the instructor’s efforts to improve classroom practice by means of DBR, using a specific approach designed for M.A. TESL candidates. Known as Exploratory

Practice (EP), EP is a principle-based research model that practicing teachers can follow to conduct their own classroom research (Allwright & Hanks, 2009). Of utmost concern in EP is not the research or its design but improving the ‘quality of life’ of the students (Table 5). This is a major distinction between EP and Action Research (AR) (Allwright & Hanks, 2009). AR is more concerned with gathering data which leads towards answers to perplexing problems.EP works to improve the process of learning through understanding, by encouraging learners to develop their own learning. This is achieved, according to Allwright by regarding learners as capable individuals (see Table 3). To generate data, the researcher used Paulo Freire’s Problem-posing process as classroom activities to encourage student involvement and development (see Table 6). This process was used because of its emphasis on dialogue and co-construction of meaning between teacher and student in the learning process (Freire, 1970; Schleppegrell & Bowman, 1995). This process is detailed in the 1982 book, Language and Culture in Conflict: Problem-Posing in the ESL Classroom, by Nina Wallerstein, which chronicles the commitment to develop students’ critical thinking skills (Schleppegrell & Bowman, 1995). It was unfortunate that this researcher could not find a copy. For student assessment and data analysis, the instructor looked to Vygotsky’s and Bakhtin’s views on language which places emphasis on the relationship between the participants. In this regard, practice becomes a reflective process that continues towards refinement (Schon, 1987). When language pedagogy synthesizes teacher and student agency, with reflective practice, in a contextual setting, it allows activities to be directly applicable to the situated classroom.SettingStudents who attend Burapha University International College (BUUIC) are generally affluent, ESL speakers predominantly from Thailand and China, with exchange students from all parts of the world, who are attending BUUIC for language development in preparation for the business influx from ASEAN. The college maintains a business curriculum with majors in Marketing, Human Resource Development, Logistics, Management and Business Administration. While the courses are delivered in English, it is generally accepted that the dominant community characteristics are Thai, and it is common for even native English speaking students to use Thai if they stay longer than one year. ESL students who arrive at BUUIC generally fall into four different unofficial English levels which correspond to their prior English experiences; The College does not confer official levels, and the levels in Table 1 are based on the instructor’s experience during the past four years. The instructor noticed students with similar prior experiences, demonstrated similar speaking skills. Those students at level one, who had studied English in primary and secondary schools, yet were unable to speak. Level two students were able to speak a few words but had no ability to converse. Students at level three could maintain a basic conversation concerning every day social skills, while level four students could discuss a number of topics

related to academic content. This distinction becomes important for learners, especially lower level speakers to realize that it is not their intellect that interferes with their language acquisition but lack of speaking opportunities. When students arrive at the university, the lower level students have a tendency to feel incapable, and that they don’t have the ability to learn English as the higher level students. Getting lower level students to understand that they would improve speaking when they participated became a major emphasis during the study.Table 1 Speaking ScaleLevel Prior English Experience1 _ Studied English in local school- never – seldom used English in a social setting _ with non-fluent instructors2 _ Studied English in local school _ Seldom - Occasionally used English in a social setting _ with non-fluent instructors3 _ Studied English in local school _ Occasionally – Often used English in social settings _ with fluent English instructors4 _ Studied English in local and abroad _ English only context _ with fluent English instructors

All BUUIC students, other than native English speakers are required to take an Intensive English summer course, along with English for Academic Purposes, English for Specific Purposes and Academic Writing within their first year. These courses are all taught by native speaking instructors with bachelors, masters and PhDs. Courses are conducted in three hour blocked sessions, once a week for sixteen weeks.