Chou_2011

7/24/2019 Chou_2011

1/17

7/24/2019 Chou_2011

2/17

422 VOL. 20 NO. 3THE ASIA-PACIFIC EDUCATION RESEARCHER

based professional development communities. The

goal of this type of research is to utilize the expertise

of the collaborators and to foster sustained dialogue

among educational stakeholders in different settings

(Hendricks, 2006).

Despite the growing trend for teacher learning

communities, only recently has the focus of thisliterature shifted to empirically examining the

changes in teachers practices and students learning

as a result of professional learning communities

(Vescio et al., 2008, p. 81). Moreover, as Vescio et al.

(2008) points out, though teachers perceptions about

the value of professional learning communities are

both valid and valuable, understanding the outcomes

of these endeavors on teaching practice and student

learning is crucial, particularly in todays era of scarce

resources and accountability (p. 81). With this in

mind, the researcher hopes the study will contribute tolling the gap in the current literature and contribute

empirical data to the discussion about how participants

go through their inquiry processes in a professional

learning community, how they learn within this

community, and how their students learning outcomes

are achieved.

This paper describes and analyzes the professional

development of a group of in-service elementary

English teachers, involved in a professional learning

community initiated by the researcher. It was rst

based on the methodological principles of action

research (McNiff & Whitehead, 2006; Stringer,2007) and then it followed the educational trends of

professional learning communities in which teachers

collaboratively conducted research within their local

community (Burns, 2005; Dana & Yendol-Silva, 2003;

Snow-Gerono, 2005; Vescio et al., 2008). The aim

of this study is rst to explore to what extent action

research is an effective approach in relation to teachers

professional development, and how a teachers learning

community can contribute to teachers development.

To date, perceptions of teachers learning communities

for development are often reported. It is likely there are

important supporting conditions for the communities

to be successful. Seldom has the literature discussed

the function of a teachers learning community. This

study is to extend the research on teachers action

research and professional learning communities by

providing perspectives on how to help novice action

researchers go through their research journey and how

a collaborative learning community can have great

potential for bringing about improvements in teaching

and learning. Indeed, there is a need for research

that examines the supporting conditions that enable

learning communities to succeed; therefore, this issue

will also be examined in this paper.

LITERATURE REVIEW

Action Research

According to McNiff and Whitehead (2006), action

research is a form of enquiry that enables practitioners

everywhere to investigate and evaluate their work

(p. 7). It is referred to as research that teachers do to

investigate their own professional practice in an attempt

to understand and improve the nature and specics of

their work. This type of research allows practitioners

to take the lead in improving and better understanding

their working with students. Since Stenhouse (1981),

extensive research in the US, UK, Australia, and other

parts of the world has made teacher action researcha valuable form of professional development (Burns,

1999; Cochran-Smith & Lytle, 1999; McNiff &

Whitehead, 2006; Mertler, 2006; Poon, 2008; Stringer,

2007; Wallace, 1998). Teacher educators who are

involved in doing action research with teachers nd

that teachers become more reective, critical, and

analytical about their own teaching behaviors in the

classroom (Darling-Hammond, 2006; Shank, 2006;

Snow-Gerono, 2005; Stark, 2006).

How do we inspire teachers to step into action

research? Kemmis and McTaggarts (1988) notable

action research framework is described as (1) Plan:

develop a plan for improvement, (2) Act: implement

the plan, (3) Observe: observe and document the

effects of the plan, and (4) Reect: reect on the

effects of the plan for further planning and informed

action. Their framework shows that the central goal

of action research is improvement of teaching practice

through systematic investigation. While talking about

action research for teachers professional development,

Gould (2008) indicates that the research topics must be

relevant and engaging to teachers. These are certainly

important topics and there is likelihood that suchresearch will have a direct and vast impact on teaching

and learning. For example, in the eld of teaching

English, Wallace (1998) suggests the following possible

areas as a focus for action: classroom management,

appropriate materials, particular teaching areas such

as reading, oral skills, student behavior, achievement

and motivation, personal management issues such as

time management and relationships with colleagues/

higher management. To be more concrete, Preisman

(2007) also offers six steps and directions for teachers

7/24/2019 Chou_2011

3/17

CHOU, C. 423TEACHERS PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT

to conduct action research. They are: (1) Determine

what you want to improve in your classroom or school,

(2) Research your idea, (3) Plan your study, (4) Put

your plan into action, (5) Examine the information you

collect, and (6) Decide what you will do with the new

knowledge of your educational practices.

The reviewed models serve as the framework forthe participants in this study to step into their own

action research. The main focus of action research is

the improvement of teachers classroom practice and

their empowerment. When teachers are enthusiastic in

their teaching, energized about their learning, and not

terried of research, they can go on to nd the answers

to the questions they have about their educational

practices. This study is intended to fulll this goal.

Action Research and Professional Development

Why is action research important for in-serviceteachers professional development? Effective

professional development should be understood as

a job-embedded commitment that teachers make in

order to further the purposes of the profession while

addressing their own particular needs (Diaz-Maggioli,

2004, p. 5). Johnson (2005) states that action research

can be the most efcient and effective way to address

the professional development of teachers (p. 44) as

it is a systematic observation of ones own teaching

practice and it allows teachers to connect education

theory and research to their classroom practice and

helps them to become more reective and analyticalin their teaching practice. In this line of professional

development, teachers have the opportunity to select

a theory or strategy to explore, research their topic in

more depth, implement or practice new strategies, and

collect data on their performance and their students

performance to monitor the results of their efforts.

In addition, recent educational literature describes

effective teachers as being reflective and critical

practi tioners. These qualities can be diff icult to

develop by just attending a seminar or conference, thus

creating the need for a different approach to teachers

in-service training in which experiential, teacher

development is required. Growing evidence has

suggested that action research as a form of professional

development not only can make teachers feel better

about their practice, but also can generate learning

gains for students (Darling-Hammond, 1997). Mertler

and Charles (2005) thus provide some practical guides

for teachers who are still unclear about why they

should do action research: (1) Action research deals

with your problems, not someone elses. (2) Action

research is very timely; you can begin whenever you

are ready and obtain immediate results. (3) Action

research provides teachers with opportunities to better

understand, and therefore improve, their educational

practices. (4) As a process, action research can also

promote the building of stronger relationships among

colleagues. (5) Possibly most importantly, actionresearch provides teachers with alternative ways of

viewing and approaching educational questions and

problems and with new ways of examining their own

educational practices. Moreover, as Mertler (2006)

indicates, action research can be used successfully in

educational settings to effectively connect theory to

practice, to improve educational practice, to empower

teachers, and as a means for promoting professional

growths (p. 13). Recently, Preisman (2007), a teacher

educator teaching graduate research courses in the

US, wrote about her experience guiding and urgingher participants to conduct action research for their

professional development. She used a few concise

words to describe how action research is signicant

in teachers lives, indicating that action research is

meaningful, friendly, and possible. She concludes that

conducting action research not only helps improve the

lives of the students, but also allows teachers to seize

control and effectuates change in personal and relevant

issues in schools and classrooms. Most importantly,

it offers teachers the opportunity to become a more

effective and inuential educators. More recently, Poon

(2008), a teacher educator in Hong Kong, investigatedthree EFL elementary English teachers professional

development through action research. She nds that

the teachers in her studies have beneted from the

action research in the aspects: enhancing knowledge

in English language teaching, boosting in condence

and sense of satisfaction, improving teaching strategies

and techniques, and broadening their mind.

Although action research has been widely

discussed as an effective approach for professional

development around the world, there are still some

difculties. Gould (2008) indicates, as teachers are

often overburdened with all kinds of professional

and personal obligations, thus time must be set aside

for teachers to talk, research, and write. Also, for

this type of professional development, principals and

administrators must carve out specic time for this

type of activity to occur. Thus, time and administrative

support are necessary for teachers professional

development to be effective (Darling-Hammond,

2005; Gould, 2008). In addition, as Gould (2008)

states, this type of professional development activity

7/24/2019 Chou_2011

4/17


does not simply occur in a vacuum. Teachers must

be given the opportunity to put their perceptions of

theory of learning into practice. They must go through

the process to see the impacts on their teaching and

students learning; otherwise they will not believe

action research is genuinely useful for their profession

(Gould, 2008, p. 5).In Taiwan, it was the educational reform, Grade

1-9 Curriculum mandated in 2001, that teachers

professional development has been a focus. In order

to keep up with the international trend for teachers

professional development, Grade 1-9 Curriculum

considers teachers action research as one important

criterion in their processional. It was also in this

new curriculum that English instruction (two hours

per week) was mandated for fth and sixth graders;

later in 2003 for third graders above. Teachers have

to participate in lots of in-service teacher trainingactivities to meet the new demands over the years.

For many, implementing action research for their

professional development is still very new as teachers

usually chose to pursue successful goals in classrooms

rst. Just as Ross-Fisher (2008) points out that research

is still regarded as not typically something that many

K-12 teachers think about as part of their regular

planning regimen (p. 160) and many teachers

are so focused on getting through each day that

the mere thought of trying to incorporate research

into their professional practice may seem daunting

and unrealistic (Ross-Fisher, 2008, p. 160). Thesephenomena are very common in the educational

context in Taiwan. Therefore, how can researchers

and educators promote teachers action research for

teachers development in the context where action

research is still in its infancy remains a crucial issue.

There is still a need for educators and researches to

continue working in this line of research to explore

more and to make it a better research method for

teachers professional development. This study thus

hopes to provide its experience and offer suggestions

for more teachers to follow this line of research for

their professional development.

Teacher Learning Communities

According to Little (1993), a professional learning

community comprises of a group of people who

consider themselves to be engaged in the same

sort of work, who share with one another a set of

values, norms, and perspectives that apply to but

extend beyond work-related matters. Multiple

terms, including teacher study groups, teacher

inquiry groups, teacher learning communities,

and teachers communities of practice are being

used to describe the concept of community as a

means toward teacher professional development and

education reform. Emerging evidence suggests that

these initiatives lead to effective and long-term teacher

development (Grossman, Wineburg, & Woolworth,2001; Little, 2003). These structures encompass a

collaborative and inquiry-based approach that can

lead to pedagogy of investigation (Ball & Cohen,

1999). In addition, a collaborative inquiry community

can provide a decision-making and problem-solving

environment necessary to support long-term change

(Giles & Hargreaves, 2006). Thus, education reformers

have increasingly invested in developing small

collaborative communities with schools and districts

as a central strategy for improving teaching and student

learning. It is the expectation that small communitieswill make it easier for teachers to share practices and

will encourage them to create a culture for sustained

instructional improvement, which will in turn enhance

student learning (Supovitz & Christman, 2005).

However, Supovitz and Christman (2005) in

their study of teacher communities in Cincinnati

and Philadelphia in the US nd that simply creating

a community is not enough to change practice

signicantly. As they state, districts and school leaders

must provide the communities with the necessary

structures, strategies, and support to help teachers

hone their instructional craft knowledge (p. 649).In a supportive learning community, teachers can

collaborate and engage in dialogue with colleagues and

other professionals. This type of professional learning

community creates opportunities for dialogues which

also make it safe to ask questions and work in a

community where uncertainty is not only valued, but

supported (Little, 1993).

Little (1982) identified four kinds of teacher

interactions that are central to collegiality and

professional community. They are: (1) frequent

concrete and precise discussions about teaching and

learning, (2) frequent observation coupled with useful

feedback, (3) collaborative development and evaluation

of teaching materials, and (4) teachers teaching and

learning from one another (p. 331). Accordingly, in

order to better structure the communities, Supovitz

and Christman (2005) recommend the following steps

be taken by leaders who want to build communities of

instructional practice: focusing communities around

instruction, diversifying communities, supporting

communities, legitimizing communities, and creating

7/24/2019 Chou_2011

5/17


professional learning opportunities for communities.

As Wray (2007) reviews, in all versions of the

communities of practice model, teacher learning is

promoted because these communities offer the space

for discussions of the teaching contexts in which

teachers are working.

Based on the suggestions previously mentioned,the researcher thus initiated a teachers professional

learning community to provide necessary structures,

strategies, and support to help teachers develop their

professional knowledge, improve their instruction, and

share their practice. It set out to investigate teachers

experiences of learning to do action research, the

effects of their participation in a professional learning

community, and their impacts on students learning.

METHODOLOGY

A qualitative approach is employed becauseit offers the researcher an opportunity to explore

complex new areas of research in a way that brings

forth the perspectives of the research participants

themselves. Qualitative research has increasingly

been proving its worth in studying social phenomenon

(Patton, 1990). Furthermore, the qualitative paradigm

allows the researcher to nd the meaning people have

constructed, that is, how they make sense of their

world, and the experiences they have in the world

(Merriam, 1998, p. 6).

ParticipantsThe researcher started to recruit participants by

e-mailing and calling teachers who were participants in

in-service teacher training courses at the researchers

university and those teachers who were acquainted

with the researcher through her visits to schools for

English class observation and supervising or on other

occasions. In the phone conversations, the researcher

asked the participants if they would like to join a

research team to carry out their action research as a

venue for their professional development. In addition,

in the e-mail to the participants, the researcher attached

a research proposal to let them know about the

research process. Five elementary English teachers in

the researchers teaching community volunteered to

participate in the study. During the rst few weeks of

research, one participant withdrew from the team as

it was difcult for him to coordinate with colleagues

and nd class hours during which to conduct his

action research in the climate of his school. Another

participant withdrew in the period just before the

research group wrote up their individual action

research papers because her junior-high daughter

needed more parents care and attention, starting not

going to school. Therefore, data in this study came

from three participants, Janet, Paula, and Lilyall the

names used in this study are pseudonyms.

Janet graduated from the English department at a

normal university with an English teacher certicateand she has 12 years of teaching experience. At the

time of the study, she was a third grade teacher in a

rural elementary school. The researcher came to know

her in a previous study while conducting focus group

interviews on professional development topics with

teachers in her teaching community. Paula graduated

from a teachers college with an English teacher

certicate. At the time of the study, she had been

teaching at her school for ve years. She was teaching

sixth graders. The researcher came to know her while

visiting her school to observe English classes severalyears prior to the current study. Also, she came to

the researchers in-service teacher-training course

during the summer of the current research project.

Lily graduated from a teachers college with an

English teacher certicate. She was teaching the rst

graders while participating in this study. She had been

teaching for four years. The researcher came to know

her while she was taking in-service English teacher

training courses at the researchers university during

that the same summer that the researcher invited her

to participate in this study.

Study Context

After receiving responses from the teachers, the

researcher and the participants formed a research

community. The teachers were told they could choose

their own topic, and the researcher, as a university

educator, would guide them through the process. They

set up to meet twice a month, from 15:00 to 18:00 on

Wednesdays. Sometimes the meeting ended at 19:00

and once ended at 21:00 as they were discussing

presenting their research results at a conference.

While the agenda of these meetings varied to some

degree, they were more similar than dissimilar. The

agendas focused on topics that allowed teachers to

describe the research process they had undergone,

to share their video-taped clips of what had worked

successfully and what had not work successfully, to

tell their personal obstacles and triumphs during

their research processes, and to comment and offer

suggestions for one another.

Thus, during the meetings, the participants usually:

(a) talked about the things that they had done in their

7/24/2019 Chou_2011

6/17


research process, (b) commented on their prepared

materials for sharing and discussion, (c) made

suggestions about the next step that teachers could

take, (d) stated the problems and challenges they

might encounter, and (e) reported what they planned

to do next week.

The guidelines are given because the researcherenvisions collaborative teacher inquiry as a cyclical

process tha t fosters an ongoing dialogue about

classroom practices and student achievement (Nelson

& Slavits, 2008). Following the guidelines, the

participants were told that in each inquiry cycle they

determined a focus for the inquiry, then proceeded

through stages of developing a plan for action, carried

out the plan while collecting and analyzing data, and

drew conclusion of their ndings related to their

teaching situations.

Also, during the meeting, the research teamdiscussed about their research steps and processes,

what data to be collected, how to collect the data, and

how the data would be organized. The participants

research data include questionnaires containing Likert-

scale-type items for students to display their learning

attitudes towards their research strategies and open-

ended questions, video-taped classroom observations,

and examination of student academic performance.

Each participant established a timeline for carrying

out their research. Setting these parameters helps them

to remain organized, focused, and on schedule. At the

end of the project, the participants then shared theiraction research papers with the group.

Data Collection and Analysis

The data were collected over two semesters. They

were from interviews with each participant before,

during, and after the research, eight meeting sessions

of discussion, teachers reective journals, teachers

video clips of teaching, and teachers action research

papers. Mul tiple sources of data were used. As

Patton (1990) points out, The use of a combination

of interviews, observations, and document analysis,

allows the eldworker to use different data sources

to validate and cross-check findings (p. 244).

Marshall and Rossman (1989) also suggest that using

a combination of sources increases the credibility as

the strengths of one particular source may add to the

weakness of another source.

The interviews were audio recorded and then

transcribed. All the data were read and read again.

At that point, themes or categories began to emerge

from the data. Specic lines of text that supported or

illuminated the categories were then identied. The

constant comparative method (Lincoln & Guba, 1985)

was employed to keep the themes tied closely to the

data. Finally, participants were given an opportunity

to review the results and provide feedback as to its

accuracy. The process of member checking is essential

in assuring that the researchers conclusion is anaccurate representation of the participants own reality

(Lincoln & Guba, 1985).

FINDINGS

The ndings illustrate how teachers have learned to

do action research and what teachers have gained from

participating in a professional learning community.

The following section portrayed some of the key

processes and benets related to teachers participation

in this inquiry-based professional learning community,

which include teachers learning to do action research,students learning results, and benets of participating

in this learning community.

Stepping into Action Research: Framing the Right

Question

The rst meeting was arranged for the participants

to get to know each other and to form a research group.

The researcher explained about the project and gave

a small talk about action research. Then, participants

were asked if they had any topic in mind to start.

Although they had been previously asked to think about

any ideas they had in mind, not all participants went inthe right direction of nding a research question at rst.

Given the need of the teachers inquiry and support in

the study, the researcher and the teachers decided to

meet regularly to talk about their individual research

processes. Participants were told to formulate a plan for

carrying out their action research and then later they

could gain comments and revise their plans.

As a first step to action research, participants

reected on their teaching from the prior few weeks

and from the previous semester. They then collected

their students work and their own teaching video clips

to nd a research topic. The teachers typically selected

topics related to methods to improve students learning

in English. They then articulated their rationales

as to why they had selected their individual topics.

The following paragraphs describe the participants

topics.

Janet was the rst person to nd the right research

direction and she soon framed her research question.

She wanted to implement actions, following a Total

Physical Response (TPR) approach, while teaching

7/24/2019 Chou_2011

7/17


the alphabet and accompanying words to her rst-year

English learning students. TPR is a language teaching

method built around the coordination of speech and

action; it attempts to teach language through physical

(motor) activity (Richards & Rodgers, 2001, p. 73).

She talked about how she collected data and framed

her research topic and questions during the previousfew weeks.

In my third week, I taught the two letters A and

B and their corresponding words, ant, ax, bag,

and bat. In week four, I taught C and D and the

corresponding words, cat, can, duck, and desk.

Later, when I showed the ashcard of ant and ask

students to say it, they forgot. I was surprised at

the response. In my teaching process, I have used

the ashcards to teach the words, called individual

students to practice, and done choral practice and

group practice. I started to think: Whats wrongwith my teaching? These students are new to

me. Did I need to ask their previous homeroom

teacher to know about their learning attitudes?

So I had a talk with last years homeroom teacher

and surveyed the students backgrounds. Later,

I found most of the students come from families

with different ethnic backgrounds of their parents,

families with aboriginal parents, and families with

low soci-economic. But I found they love PE class,

which inspired me to think incorporating TPR in

my teaching for rst-time English learners. Thus, in

week ve, I invented actions for each word and when

I taught a word, I did the action and asked students tosay the word and to do the action with me. Students

felt the learning process interesting and it did help

them to say the words when I cued the action. Then

I continued my strategy (meeting 1107).

Paula and Lily, however, had to clarify and narrow

down a topic for research over a couple of discussion

sessions. Paula was teaching sixth graders and their

English competence varied greatly. She wanted to

push the weak students to improve their English

speaking abilities and hoped they could concentrate on

learning during her teaching time in class. Thus, shearranged students into six heterogeneous groups and

implemented strategies to motivate students to learn by

following the principles of cooperative learning. She

hoped that through group competition, students would

work together and strive to achieve their goals.

The following shows Paulas rationale for nding

her research direction. She wrote:

Before I came to meet the research team, I was

excited. In order to improve students English learning

interest and increase their achievements, I have read

a number of books on English instruction.As a

homeroom teacher of sixth graders, I plan to do a

lot of things to help the students to increase their

English competence before they leave my school

(Paulas rst journal writing)

As the project went on, the researcher was afraid

that the participants were not proceeding towards the

right research direction and was eager to know their

topics and to see the process of their action research.

On the third meeting, Lily and Paula nally narrowed

down their topics. Lily was teaching rst graders.

Some of her students came from families who could

not support the students learning at home. Thus, she

wanted to nd strategies to help those few students to

keep up with learning at the pace of the majority of

the students. The method she chose was to implement

English songs and chants in her class so those studentswho needed help could easily emerge into the English

learning environment. Lily said:

During the rst meeting, I found my research topic

was too vague, but after listening to our group

members comments and discussing with the group

members, I nally found the focus and came out with

the right idea. I am happy that I quit some ideas and

narrow down to this topic (meeting 1107).

At the same meeting session, Paula talked about her

research topic, but she was still unable to nd the rightresearch focus. After sharing and interacting with

peers and the research facilitator, she nally came

to a decision.It was through discussing, sharing, and

commenting that Paula nally chose to focus on one

area to conduct her research. Examining the above

data, the research facilitator rst finds for these

novice action researchers, choosing an appropriate

topic and framing the right research question

was not an easy task. During the discussion,

the research facilitator did not want to interfere

too much in deciding the participants research

questions as she was hoping that the participants

would truly focus on their own teaching contexts

for their professional development. In addition,

the facilitator was observing if the participants

would pay attention to the necessary elements

when developing appropriate research questions:

the student population, the desired result, and

the specific strategy for achieving the end result

(Ross-Fisher, 2008). Moreover, the facilitator

was very aware that for teacher professional

7/24/2019 Chou_2011

8/17


development truly to impact student learning, the

topic for teacher development should be relevant

and engaging to teachers and will have a direct and

vast impact on teaching and leaning (Gould, 2008,

p. 5). The facilitator was hoping Paula could think

deeper about her research. Later, it was Janet who

was the rst participant to frame her research questionoffered some help when Paula had difculties in

determining her research focus. The facilitators

purpose of listening to peers discussion was for

them to think thoroughly about doing research for

themselves, not for the facilitator because no one

knows better than the teachers themselves about the

challenges they face (Gould, 2008). Although the

participants were wobbling in the research journey,

they had stepped into it to inquire into what would

work best for their students and to conduct inquiry

on the effects of their teaching and learning.

Learning Through Sharing and Discussing

It was a fruitful meeting when the participants

came with ample data for discussion and they reported

that they felt satised with their research process or

data collection. During the meeting sessions, each

teacher would present what they had accomplished

in the research process, show their own video clips

of teaching for the past two weeks, and then invite

suggestions and comments about their problems.

Through sharing teaching video clips and their ideas,

teachers existing knowledge was challenged, tacitknowledge was exposed, and alternative ways of

knowing and understanding were revealed. This

then led to their new understanding of teaching and

learning. Janets writing in her journal summarizes

the above criteria:

I think the following are the benefits of doing

action research with a group: During meeting

sessions, our report on research processes and

teaching experiences helps our members clarify and

examine our work. Moreover, discussion, sharing,

questioning, commenting, and the professors advicecan inspire our group members more teaching ideas

and methods (Janets 21st journal writing).

The following section provides more examples

focusing on the above themes: challenging existing

knowledge, critically examining teaching practice,

and learning from others. Lily said:

After watching Janets teaching video, I was

impressed. Janet was very energetic and her teaching

was very dynamic. Watching her teaching video, I

found I could learn from her. In my teaching, I have

to be very active in engaging students to learn and I

can also incorporate her strategy of using actions to

teach my rst graders new words. This might help

them memorize the words better and every child

can be engaged in the learning process (meeting1123).

During the video watching session, Lily showed

her teaching video to the group. She commented on

her teaching, saying she adopted Janets suggestion

from the previous meetingshe asked students to

design their own movements while signing the song

Twinkle, Twinkle Little Starand to perform an English

songand her students loved it. At the same time,

she also expressed her dilemmanot knowing how

to pay attention to all of the students learning. She

stated one student said the song was too easy for himas he had learned it in kindergarten, one student was

playing with his pencil, and some students could not

keep up with the class as they were unfamiliar with

the song. Lily also pointed out that one student was

just playing alone and not following along with the

class. She said:

Lily: At rst, I just knew this kid talked a lot in class.

Now, watching this teaching video now, I see he

was playing a lot.

Janet: You might walk around the class often and walk

to those students who need monitoring often. So,they can concentrate....One more thing, you taught

the song directly without enough preparations. You

might prepare some teaching aids. For example, I

used to teach this song and I would prepare paper

stars; some are small and some are big. Also, you

can emphasize the meaning of twinkle. So they

know they were singing the words with their

meaning.

Facilitator: I agree.

Lily: Yeah, I thought about asking students to cut

out their starts and color them. Then ask them to

make a ring of stars and wear it on their wrists

(meeting 1205).

Later, Lily stated, during the past weeks, my teaching

experiences in learning to be a more reflective

practitioner had changed the way I now teach (Lilys

fth journal writing). In her next research cycle, she

modied her teaching strategies and also implemented

the ideas suggested by peers: (a) she put up a poster

providing the lyrics for students to sing along and this

was from the theory of comprehensible input (Krashen,

1985), (b) she added actions while singing the song,

7/24/2019 Chou_2011

9/17


which was successful during the last cycle, and (c) she

implemented this part in this cycle: inviting students to

invent actions for their group performance. She found

during this cycle of teaching the song Teddy Bear,

students were more engaged and she also discussed

with students about her their learning results and her

teaching strategies as she wrote in her sixth journal.Paula commented on the value of a collaborative

inquiry process in which the team members could all

share experiences, listen to one anothers ideas, and

contribute suggestions and ideas (Paulas sixth journal

writing). Similarly, Janet once wrote about her feelings

about group meeting, saying:

During each group meeting, I can always learn some

valuable aspects from group members, and apply

them to my own teaching practice. Besides, I can

learn from other peoples failure experiences and

examples and learned not to commit the same typeof mistake. Whats more, I can hear other peoples

comments on my teaching. There are a lot of rewards

(Janets 18th journal writing).

In addition, Janet wrote about the function of

a teacher educator as a research and community

facilitator. She wrote, the team members gather

together with a TESOL educator, the discussion

sessions helped us to hear other peoples views

from professionals who value our job (Janet, sixth

journal writing). In her 18th journal writing, she also

pointed out that the research facilitators function as

follows:

During the group meeting, Prof. C can always point

out directions for us to make modications to be

better in teaching and research. From her analysis

on our lesson and inquiry into our teaching practice,

we could also learn how to analyze and evaluate

a teachers lesson, not just based on our common

sense Last summer, I went to join a workshop

on teacher professional development evaluation.

Regarding how to evaluate someones teaching,

I only gained general ideas. Now, I have learnedhow to analyze and evaluate ones teaching or my

own teaching more specically (Janets 18th journal

writing).

These comments and reections from teachers

were valuable for collaborative learning. Just as

Kooy (2006) indicates, by providing social space,

interactions, and time, the research team can build

relationships and open the way for relational learning.

The presentation of the data coming from different

sources illustrates how teachers were actually

learning to do their research, how they were learning

in a teachers learning community, and what they have

beneted from participating in this community.

Enhancing Students Learning

As Gould (2008) points out, the underlying premise

of action research is to improve teaching and learning.In order to accomplish that goal, the teacher must

determine whether and to what extent the intended

result is occurring within the context of the specic

strategies or techniques employed in the investigation

(p. 163). In this study, how have students beneted

from the teachers action research? Did the teachers

action research have a long-term effect on their

students learning? The following section presents

reports from Paula and Janet about their students

learning results. In Paulas reective journal entries

and action research paper, she wrote about her studentslearning results. She rst divided the processes of the

rst cycle of her action research into observation

stage, rst trial stage, and second trial stage. In

each stage, students objective learning records came

from ofcial monthly exams at her school, in which a

native English speaker would conduct a one-by-one

oral test with students. As she wrote, at rst glance at

the results, I felt discouraged due to the fact that these

results did not show that my strategy worked to help

the weakest students to achieve better (Paulas 7th

journal writing). Throughout the three outlined stages,

there were about three to four students who achievedbelow 60. For this group of students, they did not move

up to a better level. However, looking at the group of

students who scored above 80, she found the number

was 18, 21, and 20, which meant that gradually, two

to three students moved from the middle level, scoring

from 60 to 79, to the level of scoring above 80. After

the rst semester of her research, she continued her

strategy in the next semester, which she called a new

stagea new cycle then began.

Thus, in Paulas next semester, she wanted to test

if her strategy in her action research helped students

retain the achievement in their English learning

process. She collected monthly exam scores to

compare with the results of the previous semester.

She found there were 21 students who scored above

80, and three who scored below 60, which was almost

the same as the results from the previous semester.

She was uncertain if her research helped students

achieve better results. Therefore, she went one step

further to compare the research group with two other

classes (6-A and 6-B) taught by her and the same

native English teachers. She focused on 6-A, which

7/24/2019 Chou_2011

10/17


Table 1

Paulas Students Learning Results: Comparing with Two Classes

Observation1st SemesterFirst result

1st trial:1st semester

Second result

2nd trial:1st semesterThird result

A new stage:2nd semesterFourth result

Scores 6 A 6 B 6 C 6 A 6 B 6 C 6 A 6 B 6 C 6 A 6 B 6 C

100 0 1 2 3 3 6 4 3 4 0 0 5

90-99 13 9 11 11 9 9 10 3 11 6 5 10

80-89 5 2 5 6 3 6 5 9 5 9 6 6

70-79 2 7 2 2 4 4 6 3 1 5 5 2

60-69 3 3 4 3 3 0 2 1 2 2 5 1

50-59 1 6 1 2 1 1 5 3 2 1 1 2

40-49 2 0 2 0 0 0 0 1 2 4 2 1

30-29 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 4 0 1 2 0

20-29 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 1 0 0 2 0

10-19 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 2 0

Average 81 74 81 85 75 88 80 71 84 74 69 85

had the same average score at the observation stage,

81. She found her research class (6-C) outperformed

the comparison class. The average of Class 6-A was

74 while the average of Class 6-C was 85. Students

in Class 6-A did not perform well as its scores went

down while Class 6-C achieved scores similar to that of

the previous semester (see Table 1). This nally madeher feel satised with the research result. In her action

research paper, she wrote, by comparing with a class

taught by the same teachers, I felt the results would

be objective. This gave me a big picture of students

learning, comparing the scores of my research class

with those of other students in the same grade level

(Paulas research paper, p. 41).

Janet wanted to see how the teaching strategies she

applied in her action research worked for students

learning result. Therefore, in the beginning of her

second semester of research, she conducted a test tosee whether her students still remembered the taught

words after a three-week winter vacation. Thus, in

the rst week of the spring semester, she did a review

of the words students learned the last semester

presenting the words corresponding to each letter of

the alphabet and asking the students to do the actions

for the words while saying the words. After only one

time of this review, she conducted an oral test on the

52 taught words. In the test, she randomly presented

the ashcards of the words and asked the student to

say the word. She used the following rubric to grade

the students: Students saying the word immediatelyand correctly will get two points. For these students,

they will get one point: hesitating for a while and then

saying the word correctly or saying the word after the

teacher reminds him or her to try doing the action to

recall the memory. For students who cannot say the

word or say the word wrong will get zero point.

In this oral test, the total points were 104, as there

were 52 wordseach letter had two corresponding

words. How did students perform on this test? Theresults ranged from 93 to 100 points, which shows

the rate of correct answers ranged from 89% (93/104)

to 96% (100/104). Janets teaching strategies did help

students retain the words learned. She wrote in her

paper:

I was trying to see whether my teaching strategies

would help students memorize the words they

learned well. For students living in a rural area and

without much academic stimulus and competition,

I was satised and they were doing great. The result

showed that the memory loss of the words was lowafter a long vacation. Students could memorize most

of the words and it seemed to me that my teaching

strategy should have helped students memorize

words well (Janets research paper, p. 50).

Inquiring into Students Learning Results and

Attitudes

In addition to assessing students learning results,

in order to know about students learning attitudes

towards their teaching strategies and the effects of

their research processes, the team members also

discussed whether to give students a questionnaireto gain some data from students opinions (meeting

0116). They thus discussed with the facilitator to form

7/24/2019 Chou_2011

11/17


some sample questions to gain insight into students

learning attitudes. Janet wrote in her journal, Yeah,

I should give students a questionnaire to ask about

their opinions about my teaching strategies use

this semester (Janets 21st journal writing). After

discussing the questions types with group members,

at the end of the semester, Janet asked her studentsto write down their feelings about her strategies

and to indicate their learning attitudes towards

English. The results showed that students loved

her strategies of incorporating actions to memorize

words and they loved her English class. As she

wrote in her paper:

In this research, asking students to do actions to

learn English words makes them feel interesting.

In addition, students responded that they were glad

that they were invited to propose their ideas of an

action in learning a new wordwhich made themfeel proud and happy. Students love to learn English

in the atmosphere of doing actionlike performing

and playing (Janets paper, p. 52).

In Janets interview, she reported I think the

most successful part of my teaching strategy in the

research is, using actions to help students to memorize

new words. Students love the actions they designed

because these came from their creative ideas, they

could memorize them better (Janets third interview).

Janets data illustrates how her students have gained

deeper learning attitudes towards English learning in

her class.

In addition to colleting students academic data to

test the effect of the strategies implemented, Paula also

conducted a survey to inquire about students attitudes

towards her research strategy at the end of her rst

semester. First, the results show that students expressed

positive comments on her teaching strategies. Students

agreed that a small group learning situation (a) gave

them more practice opportunities in class, (b) helped

them improve English learning, (c) made them feel

more condent during an oral test, (d) made them likeattending English classes, and (e) made the learning

atmosphere more active. Next, students expressed

they liked the atmosphere in which group members

helped one another. Third, the teacher also asked

students to indicate their English learning experiences:

Comparing the two monthly exams, how have you felt

about your English learning results? Students indicated

positive comments in the following ve categories:

they improved their English vocabulary listening

abilities, they could comprehend the English teachers

oral test questions, they could read the content of each

lesson better, their oral test results were improved, their

written test results were improved, and they gained

more condent in learning English.

DISCUSSION

Following the call for empirically examining the

changes in teachers practices and students learning

as a result of professional learning communities

(Vescio et al., 2008), and not just stating that teachers

perceptions about the value of professional learning

communities are both valid and valuable (Vescio et

al., 2008, p. 81), this study has provided data which

illustrate the following themes to fill the gap of

discussing the outcomes of teachers endeavors on

teaching practice and student learning, particularly in

todays scare resources and accountability.

Action Research Improves Students Learning

In action research, students are used as an

important source of information (Ponte, 2002), the

ndings exemplify how teachers use action research

to investigate and evaluate their work (McNiff &

Whitehead, 2006). In this study, just as Janet expressed

in her journal by talking about giving a questionnaire

in order to know about students learning results and

feelings, she wrote, Since this is my action research,

how the researched objectives feel is sure to be

important and their opinions should be valued (Janets

21stjournal writing).

While participating in a professional learning

community, many teachers indicate that unless

classroom practice and student learning improve,

participation is not worth the investment of teacher

time and energy (Tschannen-Moran, Uline, Woolfolk

Hoy, & Mackley, 2000). First of all, the results of this

study echo the above statement. Teachers in this study

have stepped into their action research with the aim

of improving their students learning. They started

their action research to focus on how they could help

students to achieve better performance in English.They set out to implement strategies to improve their

teaching and to monitor their students learning. At the

end of their action research, they have found students

not only achieved better performance in general

English skills, but they also beneted from learning

with peers and experienced learning in a supportive

environment.

Next, as Noddings (1992) emphasizes, Caring

is the very bedrock of all successful education (p.

27). Teachers who believe in their students abilities

7/24/2019 Chou_2011

12/17


demonstrate that they care by placing the learners

at the center of the educational process. It was

through this project, the researcher nds these novice

teacher researchers tend to start with caring for their

students. Linking inquiry and learning requires that

participants are responsible for helping students

learn better, delivering quality education, and makingimprovements in their day-to-day practices. Third, this

study nds these teachers have continually reected on

and rened their instructional approaches to ensure that

their students are learning and that they deeply cared

about the learning of each student. This result conrms

what Grossman et al. (2001) state, although teacher

learning is important in any professional development

program improvements in students learning are

necessary for the effort to be considered successful.

As action research typically involves sources

of data such as teacher observation, examinationof student work samples, interest inventories, and

performance on either teacher-created assessments

or commercially-produced instruments (Ross-Fisher,

2008), in this project, teachers were also advised to

collect both quantitative and qualitative data. As these

teachers are novice researchers, they were advised to

use descriptive statistics, such as population mean, for

analyzing their data (Ross-Fisher, 2008). Additionally,

presenting the data in charts, graphs, or tables is

appropriate and useful (Goud, 2008).

Through Action Research, Teachers Learn toCritically Examine Their Practice and to Get to

Know About Their Teaching and Their Students

Better

In light of action research, reection takes places

before, during, and after each cycle of action. Being

critical in teaching and action research follows

Deweys lead, viewing the problematic as a central

principle of inquiry (Schon, 1983, 1987; Tabachnick

& Zeichner, 1991). The underlying goal of this

project is for participants to view teacher research

as an opportunity to critically examine their own

teaching and as a tool for reaching understanding

about the things they encountered in their classrooms.

In this study the teachers were constantly required

to examine their own teaching through a number of

methods, such as writing teachers journals, watching

teaching video clips, participating in discussions at

meeting sessions, and writing their own research

papers. The results also showed a growth in teachers

understanding of their teaching and contributed to

improving their practice. Examining data from the

participants reection in their journals and discussion

sections and their research papers, the researcher nds

these teachers become more reective, critical, and

analytical about their own teaching behaviors in the

classroom (Darling-Hammond, 2006; Shank, 2006;

Snow-Gerono, 2005; Stark, 2006). For example, Lilys

comments during the meetings (meeting 1123 andmeeting 1205) and journal writing #4, Janets journal

writing #18, and Paulas paper (on page 41) present

the fact that they gained better awareness of critical

reection and teaching.

Moreover, as action research affords teachers

opportunities to connect theory with practice, to

become more effective in their practice, and to become

empowered practitioners, in this study, the teachers

have tried out teaching strategies to see what worked

best with their students in their own contexts. They

collected evidence of student learning and made theirinstructional decisions based on that evidence in

accordance with the principles of action research

nding problems, implementing strategies, collecting

data, analyzing results, and sharing with peers (Burns,

1999; McNiff & Whitehead, 2006; Mertler, 2006;

Stringer, 2007; Wallace, 1998). Just as Sparks-Lager

and Colton (1991) indicate, professional knowledge is

seen as coming both from sources outside the teacher

and from the teachers own interpretations of their

everyday experiences. Teachers can select a theory or

strategy to explore, research the topic in more depth,

implement or practice new strategies, and collect dataon their performance and their students performance

to monitor the results of their efforts. In this study, the

teachers have investigated how theories can be put

into practice in their teaching contextsJanet applied

a modied TPR approach, Paula used cooperative

learning to encourage students to have more oral

practice in groups, and Lily implemented English

songs to give more meaningful chances for students to

speak English. The examples illustrate how teachers

action research can help teachers learn to teach for

understanding as teacher action research is a form

of enquiry that enables teachers to investigate and

evaluate their work (McNiff & Whitehead, 2006).

By carrying out their individual action research,

the teachers experienced what worked best for their

students to learn English and how they could solve

their own problems in their teaching. The results

of this study show that new teaching competencies

can be acquired in practice (Hargreaves, 1997) and

teachers working contexts are a suitable place for

their professional development.

7/24/2019 Chou_2011

13/17


Furthermore, action research affirms the

professionalism of teaching by giving teachers a

real voice in their own professional development. As

the teacher is the judge of what works, the essence

of action research lies in the fact that teachers have

unique insights into their classrooms and can explore

questions that are not accessible to outsiders likeuniversity researchers. The results of this study show

that through action research, the participating teachers

have gotten to know their students and themselves

better via collecting, monitoring, and analyzing their

students learning records and surveying their learning

attitudes. They have played a key role in changing their

teaching to benet their students learning. By carrying

out their individual action research, they have come to

know more about themselves and their students.

What Especially Contributes to Teachers Learningin a Community?

In addition to outlining the framework of doing

action research, this study formed a small community,

arranged meetings sessions, and implemented video as

a means for teachers to share their teaching practice, to

reect on their teaching, and to learn from one another

via watching real teaching in context. According to

Little (1982), four kinds of teacher interactions are

central to collegiality and professional community:

frequent concrete and precise discussions about

teaching and learning, frequent observation coupled

with useful feedback, collaborative development andevaluation of teaching materials, and teachers teaching

and learning from one another. First, in this project, in

order to better stimulate participants interaction and

reection, the research facilitator, following Little

(1982), employed the use of teachers own teaching

videos as the framework for reection and discussion.

When the participants started to collect their research

data, the research facilitator suggested that during

the meeting, participants would present their own

teaching video clips to share with the peers. Thus,

during the meeting sessions, participants viewed

video clips of their instruction and sought different

ideas and strategies to deal with problems. The intent

of using video clips of teachers teaching was to

elicit descriptions of participants meaning making

in teaching and to allow reection and critic. With

such viewing, teachers could approach the potential

effects of group discussions as well as the principles

of reections. As literature indicates, video records

can highlight aspects of classroom life that a teacher

might not notice in the midst of carrying out a lesson,

and can capture the social fabric of a classroom

(Clark & Hollingtsworth, 2000). In this study, the

video activity proved to be a successful venue for

teachers to reect and to develop. The data show that

the teachers verbal responses to the open-minded

questions in the discussion sessions actually helped

them examine their teaching practice. Dialoguesand interactions with others foster knowledge

construction and reconstruction (Kooy, 2006). Take

Lily as an example in this study: Examining the

data from meeting 1205 while Lily was showing

her teaching video as an example and her reective

journal writing 4 and 5. She found her weakness

in scaffolding the rst graders to learning and she

acknowledged that she did not pay enough attention

to monitor students leaning as she had taught higher

graders long. She took Janets advice to design

teaching aids and to engage students in learningthrough meaningful actions. She also commented on

the energetic and engaging aspects she learned from

Janet while she viewed Janes teaching video. The

results of this study show that during the meeting

sessions, teachers not only could reect and critic on

their own teaching video clips, but peers also could

offer different views and perspectives of teaching

activities and strategies.

However, it must also be noted that for teachers to

share their teaching videos in the meeting may not be

an easy task. In this study, Lily was not very comfortable

in showing her teaching videos at the early stage of thestudy. She once wrote in her journal that she felt the peers

were very condent in their teaching performance while

she was a little nervous watching herself teach with the

peers on the big screen due to her novice experience

in English teaching and lack of condence. The case

of Lilys learning process was found to be similar in

other contexts and studies. For example, in Mei Sius

(2008) study, she nds that teachers in her study also

experienced the same phenomenon. It was through the

research process that teachers reported that they felt

comfortable talking to each other professionally and

observing each other (p. 107). It is thus suggested that

the research facilitator must pay attention to this issue.

As the research group members get to know about each

other better and get familiar with the research process,

the atmosphere of a supportative and warm learning

community will be developed.

In addition, in Taiwan, after the educational reform

in 2001, elementary teachers have been required

to participate in lots of workshops and in-service

teacher training programs to acquire new subject

7/24/2019 Chou_2011

14/17


matter knowledge in order to cope with the new

standards. It was this new curriculum that English

was mandated in elementary education. Elementary

English teachers have been under great pressure to

meet new demands for courses and policies over the

years. Thus, participants in this project were required

to pursue not only professional knowledge in Englishbut also professional knowledge in doing action

research. For novice teachers to survive, they usually

chose to focus more on the subject matter knowledge

in their profession. The role of the research facilitator

in this study thus needed to provide more support

for these participants during their action research

processes. The rst type of support came from the

subject matter knowledge and teaching strategies.

As the research facilitator was also a TESOL teacher

educator, these participants would sometimes inquire

about instructional knowledge from the facilitator toconrm their concepts and strategies. The exchange

and interaction of teaching strategies made them feel

comfortable and condent in their learning to teach.

Thus, in addition to providing the knowledge about

conducting action research, the research facilitator

also serve as a mentor, providing the participants

perspectives about teaching.

Furthermore, the three participants in this study

have shown their commitment to learning in their

profession. They did not withdraw from the project

when encountering obstacles. At last, they have

managed to fulll their research. They were involvedin this project to learn from one another rather than to

compete with one another. As indicated, collaboration

is assumed to create a learning culture and helps

to build a community in which further learning is

supported and stimulated (Kwakman, 2003). The

researcher nds that participants in this project were

supportive of one another and they were able to provide

remarkable comments and solutions to problems. This

type of learning culture, as a result, helps contribute to

the fruitful results of their work and research.

Therefore, this study finds that in order for a

community of novice research teachers to work

successfully, the activity to facilitate teachers learning

and the supportive atmosphere for learning with peers

as well as the role of the community facilitator should

be emphasized.

CONCLUSION

This study has illustrated embedding teachers action

research in a professional learning community to assist

teachers learning to do research and gain knowledge.

It draws the following conclusions. Firstly, ndings

from this study validate teachers action research as

a way to assist teachers in understanding their practice

and improve student achievement. As Slavin (2006)

indicates, teachers conduct research for one main

purpose: to improve teaching and learning. When

teachers take actions based on their research ndings,it is logical that students learning should also benet.

This study adds data to the growing body of knowledge

that action research as professional development not

only makes teachers feel better about their practice,

but it also reaps learning gains for students (Darling-

Hammond 1997).

Secondly, as Abell (2007) indicates, teaching

by its very nature is an inquiry-oriented process (p.

64). This study emphasizes that action research is

a professional development strategy that puts the

teacher at the center of the professional developmentprocess (Gould, 2008, p. 5). The teachers in this

study have all set out upon their own inquiry journey.

They began their inquiries into their classrooms and

then they took actions to improve their instruction.

Although still some teachers might think of research

as something only university professors do, this study

suggests teachers can contribute to the research base

on effective instruction by conducting research in their

own classrooms.

Thirdly, just as Ross-Fisher (2008) states, Dont

forget to share (p. 164), action research promotes

teachers sharing their results. Thus, in order to sharewith a wider audience, the research group presented

their results at an English teaching conference. The

conference presentation, discussion, and sharing was

a brand new experience for these participants. In their

profession, they have never had this professional

presentation opportunity. Darling-Hammond (2003)

states, teachers learn best by studying, doing, and

reecting; by collaborating with other teachers; by

looking closely at students and their work; and by

sharing what they see (p. 278). For those teachers

who have not yet begun their own research, this study

shows that action research can indeed be meaningful,

friendly, and possible (Preisman, 2007). The peers felt

although the journey was rocky, the nal destination

was a great triumph.

Fourthly, this study nds a professional learning

community can serve as an effective platform for

teachers to exchange knowledge, to interact, and

to learn from one another based on their practices.

As Wray (2007) reviews, in all versions of the

communities of practice model, teacher learning is

7/24/2019 Chou_2011

15/17


promoted because the communities offer the space

for discussions about the teaching contexts in which

teachers are working. This study thus adds empirical

data to educational literature which supports the

recent recommendations for professional development

through forming a site-based professional learning

community that promote the practice of shared inquirygrounded in teachers work (Crockett, 2002; Vescio

et al., 2008).

Lastly, as the research facilitator proposed a video-

watching section for sharing and discussion during the

meeting sessions, this activity proved to be effective

for maintaining the community discussion and

provided a space for critical reection and comment.

It also gave teachers concrete events to comment,

evaluate, and reect. For future collaborative action

research researchers, this study thus suggests research

facilitators offer a framework for maintaining thediscussion.

Moreover, it was also with the help of the research

facilitator that this teacher community went to the

end of the research journey. Although the research

facilitator and the participants all encountered

difculties and frustrations, they did not set back.

The facilitator can indeed play a very important role

in maintaining a community and guiding novice

research practitioners in their research profession. The

facilitators professional knowledge made the novice

research teachers feel condent in their direction of

doing research.

Challenges and Implications

Although it has been long proposed that

teachers action research be part of the criterion of

teachers professional development nationally and

internationally, there are some challenges ahead.

First, the researcher nds teachers in this study still

need to gain more insights about action research.

Despite so much seemingly incontrovertible evidence

of the advantages of action research for professional

development, some current action research studies

demonstrate that teachers still hold back (Roth, 2007).

This study also encountered the same dilemma. Before

conducting the research, the researcher emailed and

phoned several additional teachers in her teaching

district to participate, they turned down the invitation.

After hearing about the bimonthly meeting sessions, the

writing of an action research paper, and the requirement

of collecting data and observations, they responded

that these tasks would take a lot of their time and they

did not feel condent about fullling the goals. Even if

the research initiator made it clear that she would act as

a facilitator to support teachers in learning to do action

research, a number of teachers hesitated. As previous

research has indicated, inquiry-related constraints

revolve around the issues of insufcient rewards, time,

and teacher support such as what Darling-Hammond

(2005) states, time and administrative support arenecessary for professional development to be effective.

This study also encountered constraints although the

support from the research initiator was provided and

the study followed suggestions from previous studies

(Ponte, Beijaard, & Wubbels, 2004; Poon, 2008), in

which facilitators support play an important role in

helping teachers do their action research. Still, not much

evidence shows schools offer awards to support the

participating teachers inquiry efforts. Thus, this study

suggests if action research and collaborative inquiry

are to continue as trends of teachers professionaldevelopment, teachers support for conducting research

should be valued. It is suggested that one-to-two hours

of research time per week be given for teachers due to

the fact that each research meeting session usually takes

more than three hours and analyzing data and writing

the paper take more time.

Next, action research in elementary English

education is very scant in EFL contexts due to the

new curriculum and mandates in Asian countries or

some other countries. It is suggested that researchers

and educators can implement teacher action research

or collaborative inquiry in a semester-long trainingcourse to help teachers gain sufcient knowledge to

do action research for their professional development.

In this type of training course, a small community of

practitioners can then be formed and ofcial in-service

training time would then be allowed. Moreover, during

the training course, when teachers carry out their

action research projects, facilitators and peers support

should be provided. Teachers with interests in action

research can collaborate to help one another. Without

stepping on the research journey, teachers wont realize

the meaning of conducting action research. In this way,

there will be more teachers and communities to follow

the move toward the current teachers professional

development trend.

In conclusion, even though this study has been

a small initiative, it has allowed the researcher and

practitioners to move towards the construction of new

ways to approach professional development activities

as well as to give voice and visibility to researchers

and teachers. In a few words, it has allowed us to learn

from our own practice.

7/24/2019 Chou_2011

16/17


ACKNOWLEDGMENTA research grant was awarded by the National Science

Council, Taiwan (Grant No. NSC 96-2411-H-134-007).

The author would like to thank all the teachers who

participated in this study and the reviewers for their

insightful comments.

REFERENCESAbell, S. K. (2007). Research on science teacher knowledge.

In S.K. Abell & N. G. Lederman (Eds.), Handbook

of research on science education (pp. 1105-1140).

Mahwah, N.J.: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates

Ball, D. L., & Cohen, D. K. (1999). Developing practice,

developing practitioners: Toward a practice-based

theory of professional education. In L. Darling-

Hammond & G. Sykes (Eds.), Teaching as the learning

profession: Handbook of policy and practice (pp.

1-32). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Burns, A. (1999). Collaborative action research for English

language teachers. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge

University Press.

Burns, A. (2005). Action research an evolving paradigm?

Language Teaching, 38(2), 57-74.

Clarke, D., & Hollingsworth, H. (2002). Elaborating a

model of teacher professional growth. Teaching and

Teacher Education, 18(8), 947-967.

Cochran-Smith, M., & Lytle, S. (1999). Relationships

of knowledge and practice: Teacher learning in

communities. In A. Iran-Njad & P.D. Pearson (Eds.),

Review of research in education(Vol. 24,pp. 249-305).

Washington, DC: American Educational Research

Association.Crockett, M.D. (2002). Inquiry as professional development:

Creating dilemmas through teachers work. Teaching

and Teacher Education, 18(5), 609-624.

Dana, N.F., & Yendol-Silva, D. (2003). The reflective

educators guide to classroom research: Learning to

teach and teaching to learn through practitioner inquiry.

Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.

Darling-Hammond, L. (1997). The right to learn. San

Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Darling-Hammond, L. (2003). Teacher learning that supports

student learning. In A. Ornstein, L. S. Behar-Horenstein,

& E. Pajak (Eds.), Contemporary issues in curriculum

(pp. 277-282). Boston, MA: Pearson Education.Darling-Hammond, L. (2005). Teaching as a profession:

Lessons in teacher preparation and professional

development.Phi Delta Kappan, 87(3), 237-240.

Darling-Hammond, L. (2006).Powerful teacher education:

Lessons from exemplary programs. San Francisco, CA:

Jossey-Bass.

Diaz-Maggioli, G. (2004). Teacher-centered professional

development.Alexandria, VI: Association for Supervision

and Curriculum Development.

Garcia, L. M., & Robin, N. P. (2008). Innovation, research

and professional development in higher education:

Learning from our own experience. Teaching and


Giles, C., & Hargreaves, A. (2006). The sustainability

of innovative schools as learning organizations and

professional learning communities during standardized

reform.Educational Administration Quarterly, 42(1),

124-156.Gould, M. (2008). Teacher as researcher: A paradigm for

professional development. Kappa Delta Pi Record,

45(1), 5-7.

Grossman, P., Wineburg, S., & Woolworth, S. (2001).

Toward a theory of teacher community. Teachers

College Record, 103(6), 942-1011.

Hargreaves, A. (1997). From reform to renewal: A new

deal for a new age. In A. Hargreaves & R. Evans (Eds.),

Beyond educational reform. Bringing teachers back

in(pp. 105-125). Buckingham, UK: Open University

Press.

Hendricks, C. (2006). Improving schools through action

research: A comprehensive guide for educators. Boston:Pearson.

Johnson, A. P. (2005).A short guide to action research(2nd

ed.). Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.

Kemmis, S., & McTaggart, R. (1988). The action

research planner(3rd ed.). Geelong, Australia: Deakin

University.

King, M. B., & Newmann, F. M. (2000). Will teacher

learning advance school goals?Phi Delta Kappan, 81,

576-580.

Kooy, M. (2006). The telling stories of novice teachers:

Constructing teacher knowledge in book clubs. Teaching


Krashen, S. D. (1985). The input hypothesis: Issues andimplications. New York, NY: Longman.

Kwakman, K. (2003) Factors affecting teachers participation

in professional learning activities.Teaching and Teacher

Education, 19(2), 149-170.

Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (1985).Naturalistic inquiry.

Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Little, J. W. (1982). Norms of collegiality and

experimentation: Workplace conditions of school

success. American Educational Research Journal,

19(3), 325- 340.

Little, J. W. (1993). Professional community in

comprehensive high schools: The two worlds of

academic and vocational teachers. In J. W. Little &

M. W. McLaugh (Eds.), Teachers work: Individuals,

colleagues, and contexts(pp. 104-136). New York, NY:

Teachers College Press.

Little, J. W. (2003). Inside teacher community:

Representations of classroom practice. Teachers College

Record, 105(6), 913-945.

Marshall, C., & Rossman, G. (1989).Designing qualitative

research. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Marsick, V. J., & Watkins, K. E. (1999). Facilitating

learning organizations: Making learning count.

Aldershot, England: Gower.

7/24/2019 Chou_2011

17/17


McNiff, J., & Whitehead, J. (2006).All you need to know

about action research. London: Sage Publication.

Merriam, S. (1998). Qualitative research and case study

applications in education: Revised and expanded from

case study research in education. San Francisco: Jossey-

Bass Publishers.

Mertler, C. A. (2006). Action research: Teachers asresearchers in the classroom. Thousand Oaks, CA:

Sage.

Mertler, C. A., & Charles, C. M. (2005). Introduction to

educational research(5th ed.). Boston, MA: Allyn &

Bacon.

Nelson, T., & Slavit, D. (2008). Supported teacher

collaborative inquiry. Teacher Education Quarterly,

35(1), 99-116.

Noddings, N. (1992). The challenge to care in schools:

An alternative approach to education. New York, NY:

Teachers College Press.

Patton, M. Q. (1990). Qualitative evaluation and research

methods(2nd ed.). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.Ponte, P. (2002). How teachers become active researchers

and how teacher educators become the facilitators.

Journal for Educational Action Research, 10(3), 399-

423.

Ponte, P., Ax, J., Beijaard, D., & Wubbels, T. (2004).

Teachers development of professional knowledge

through action research and the facilitation of this by

teacher educators.Teaching and Teacher Education,

20(6), 571-588.

Poon, A.Y. K. (2008). How action research can complement

formal language teacher education. The Asia-Pacic

Education Researcher, 17(1), 43-62.

Preisman, K. (2007). Dont be afraid: Take action to improveyour educational practices. Kappa Delta Pi Record,

43(3), 102-103.

Richards, J. C., & Rodgers, T. (2001). Approaches and

methods in language teaching. Boston, MA: Cambridge

University Press.

Roth, K. J. (2007). Science teachers as researchers. In S. K.

Abell, & N. G. Lederman (Eds.),Handbook of research

on science education (pp. 1203-1250). London, UK:

Routledge.

Ross-Fisher, R. (2008). Action research to improve teaching

and learning.Kappa Delta Pi Record, 44(4), 160-164.

Schon, D. A. (1983). The reflective practitioner: How

professionals think in action. New York, NY: Basic

Books.

Schon, D. A. (1987).Educating the reective practitioner.

San Francisco, CA: Jossey Bass.Shank, M .J. (2006). Teacher storytelling: A means for

creating and learning within collaborative space.

Teaching and Teacher Education, 22(6), 711-721.

Slavin, R. E. (2006).Educational psychology: Theory and

practice(8th ed.). Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.

Snow-Gerono, J. L. (2005). Professional development in

a culture of inquiry: PDS teachers identify the benets

of professional learning communities. Teaching and


Stark, S. (2006). Using action learning for professional

development. Educational Action Research, 14(1),

23-43.

Stenhouse, L. (1981). What counts as research? BritishJournal of Educational Studies, 29, 103-122.

Stringer, E. T. (2007). Action research (3rd ed.). San

Francisco, CA: Sage.

Supovitz, J. A., & Christman, J. B. (2005). Small learning

communities that actually learn: Lessons for school

leaders.Phi Delta Kappan, 86(9), 649-651.

Tabachnick, B. R., & Zeichner, K. (1991).Issues and

practices in inquiry-oriented teacher education.

London, UK: Falmer Press.

Tschannen-Moran, M., Uline, C., Woolfolk Hoy, A., &

Mackley, T. (2000). Creating smarter schools through

collaboration.Journal of Educational Administration,

38, 247-271.Vescio, V., Ross, D., & Adams, A. (2008). A review

of research on the impact of professional learning

communities on teaching practice and student learning.

Teaching and Teacher Education, 24(1), 80-91.

Wallace, M. J. (1998). Action research for language

teachers. Boston, MA: Cambridge University Press.

Wray, S. (2007). Teaching portfolios, community, and pre-

service teachers professional development. Teaching


Documents

Chou_2011