Research and Publications Sub-Committee

Research Training Event Series

(ResTES)

Event 3

Issues in EAP classroom research:

Action research vs exploratory practice

25 November 2011
Fulwood Room, 5th Floor, University House
Western Bank, Sheffield, S10 2TG

ResTES Event 3 Programme

10:30-11:00

Registration and coffee

11:00-12:45

Welcome

Researching Learning in Higher Education

Professor Glynis Cousin, University of Wolverhampton
12:45-13:45

Lunch

13:45-15:30

Work-in-Progress Presentations

13:45-14:15

Implementing Exploratory Practice in English for Academic Purposes: Ethical

dilemmas and practical considerations
Judith Hanks, University of Leeds
Action research: A viable alternative to evaluative observations?
Diarmuid Fogarty, INTO Manchester
Practitioner research: Redesigning an academic writing course for higher level
university students in Ukraine
Larysa Sanotska, Ivan Franko National University, Lviv

14:20-14:50
14:55-15:25

Poster (work-in-progress)
Combining autonomy-oriented pedagogy and
practitioner research via Exploratory Practice
Ana Salvi, University of Warwick

15:25-16:00

Coffee and cakes

16:00-17:00

The Scholarship of Teaching: Researching Your Own Practice for TEAP

Competency Development Framework
Garry Maguire (BALEAP TEAP Officer), Oxford Brookes University

17:00-17:15

Round-up

Please email research@baleap.org if you have queries about this event.

To register, please go to http://www.baleap.org.uk/baleap/conference-events/restes.

ResTES Event 3 Abstracts

Researching Learning in Higher Education

Professor Glynis Cousin, University of Wolverhampton
In this workshop I will present some ideas before exploring practice based
research approaches with participants. My methodological focus will be on
how we might research university education in trustworthy, interesting and
creative ways. I will talk a little about the methodological framework that I
think best suits inquiry in this field to prompt discussion about theoretical
underpinnings to education research. I will then support participants to
explore research questions and methods. I hope that participants will
emerge from the workshop with some new ideas of both theoretical and
practical interest for setting up teaching and learning projects.

The Scholarship of Teaching for Learning: Using the TEAP Competency

Framework to Research Your Practice for Professional Development and
Accreditation Purposes
Garry Maguire, Oxford Brookes University
This workshop enables participants to adapt their approach to investigating
their own teaching practice to one which directly draws on the TEAP
Competency Framework. The framework can be exploited for evaluating
current practice, identifying areas for research and as a basis for collating
and generating data sufficient to satisfy the evidence requirements of the
developing portfolio award. Opportunity to begin this process, to share
research practice and to contribute to the development of EAP
professional standards is provided.

Combining autonomy-oriented pedagogy and practitioner research via Exploratory Practice

Ana Salvi, University of Warwick
The research project I am currently engaged in is aimed at exploring the impact a learner-centred
pedagogy can have on language learners' development, and gaining insights into the feasibility of
incorporating the principles of Learner Autonomy (Holec, 1981; Dam, 1995) and Exploratory
Practice into my practice in two very different contexts, namely, a five-week summer school
course for teenagers in London in July/August 2011, and a five-week EAP university course for
postgraduate students at the University of Warwick in August/September 2011.
Prior to engaging in this project I had come to the conclusion that enabling learners to take a
greater degree of control over their classroom learning may have been the main reason why some
of my classes had been particularly successful, at least from my point of view, in the past. I also
realized that Exploratory Practice, as promoted by Dick Allwright, could be a very appropriate way
to understand better the nature of the kind of autonomy-oriented teaching approach I have
engaged in. Particularly in its more recent manifestation (Allwright and Hanks, 2009), issues or
puzzles generated by students are central in Exploratory Practice, and this seems to tie in very well
with the demands of a learner-centred, indeed autonomy-oriented approach.
Specifically, I have been offering learners in both contexts choices regarding objectives, materials,
tasks and forms of evaluation; promoting group work; and encouraging learners to explore their
own puzzles about their learning lives. Throughout, I have video recorded lessons; gathered
students' written feedback and reflections; and I have ended each course with focus group
interviews to access students' own perspectives on the experience. My final report -parts of which
I will be able to present in Sheffield- will make use of all this data, and will be based on themes
which emerge from a content analysis in relation to the overall aims (above).
References
Allwright, D. & J. Hanks. 2009. The Developing Language Learner: An Introduction to Exploratory Practice. Basingstoke:
Palgrave Macmillan.
Dam, L. 1995. Learner Autonomy: From Theory to Classroom Practice. Ireland: Authentik.
Holec, H. 1981. Autonomy and Foreign Language Learning. Oxford: Pergamon.

Implementing Exploratory Practice in English for Academic Purposes: Ethical dilemmas and
practical considerations
Judith Hanks, University of Leeds
Conducting research in ones own classrooms/workplace requires awareness of a range of ethical
and practical issues. Questions regarding the pursuit of knowledge, and the rights and
responsibilities of the participants, including discussion of confidentiality, avoidance of harm, and
informed consent have long been debated in the literature (AARE, 2009; BERA, 2004; Pring, 2001;
Small, 2001). In addition, practical constraints such as lack of time and resources (Borg, 2009,
2010; Burton, 1998; Zeichner & Noffke, 2001), for researchers and teachers alike, are welldocumented in practitioner research in education.
In an attempt to address these issues, Exploratory Practice (EP) promotes a principled approach to
combining pedagogy, practice and research in the language classroom (Allwright, 1993, 2001,
2005; Gieve & Miller, 2006). This approach claims to offer a wealth of opportunities for
practitioners to investigate their own learning and teaching practices, set their own agendas and
disseminate findings to each other (Allwright & Hanks, 2009). But what happens to the EP
principles when practitioners engage in research into their own practices?
In this paper I discuss the ethical dilemmas and the practical issues involved when EP is
incorporated into goal-oriented, intensive programmes of study in English for Academic Purposes
(EAP). Through two case studies, undertaken as part of my on-going doctoral studies, I illustrate
the practical constraints of setting up and carrying out practitioner research in the EAP classroom,
and consider the ethical issues related to such work, particularly when attempting to also conform
to the requirements of a PhD. I examine the challenges faced by practitioners wishing to
incorporate EP into their EAP work, and relate my own dilemmas as I negotiate these complexities.
References
AARE. (2009). Code of Ethics. Retrieved 31 October 2011, from http://www.aare.edu.au/ethics/ethcfull.htm
Allwright, D. (1993). Integrating 'research' and 'pedagogy': Appropriate criteria and practical possibilities. In J. Edge &
K. Richards (Eds.), Teachers Develop Teachers Research (pp. 125-135). Oxford: Heinemann.
Allwright, D. (2001). Three major processes of teacher development and the design criteria for developing and using
them. Paper presented at the Research and Practice in Language Teacher Education: Voices from the Field,
Minneapolis, USA.
Allwright, D. (2005). Developing principles for practitioner research: The case of Exploratory Practice. The Modern
Language Journal 89(3), 353-366.
Allwright, D., & Hanks, J. (2009). The Developing Language Learner: An introduction to Exploratory Practice.
Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
BERA. (2004). Revised Ethical Guidelines for Educational Research Retrieved 31 October, 2011, from
http://www.bera.ac.uk/publications/guidelines/
Borg, S. (2009). English language teachers' conceptions of research. Applied Linguistics, 30(3), 358-388.
Borg, S. (2010). Language teacher research engagement. Language Teaching, 43(4), 391-429.
Burton, J. (1998). A cross-case analysis of teacher involvement in TESOL research. TESOL Quarterly, 32(3), 419-446.
Gieve, S., & Miller, I. K. (Eds.). (2006). Understanding the Language Classroom. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
Pring, R. (2001). The virtues and vices of an educational researcher. Journal of Philosophy of Education, 35(3), 407-421.
Small, R. (2001). Codes are not enough: What philosophy can contribute to the ethics of educational research. Journal
of Philosophy of Education, 35(3), 387-406.
Zeichner, K. M., & Noffke, S. E. (2001). Practitioner Research. In V. Richardson (Ed.), Handbook of Research on
Teaching (4th ed., pp. 298-330). Washington: American Educational Research Association.

Action research: A viable alternative to evaluative observations?

Diarmuid Fogarty, INTO Manchester
This talk will describe the exploratory steps I have taken as part of my research for an MA in TEFL
from Sheffield Hallam University. My research question is What steps might be taken to
transform the current evaluative observation procedures in order to facilitate my own
professional development and that of my colleagues?
My research begins with a critical evaluation of the current procedures that are in place for
observing the quality of teaching within the institution where I work. This highlights a tension,
well-reported in the literature, that arises from the supposed dual purpose of observations: to
provide data upon which to evaluate the quality of teaching and to act as a catalyst for teachers
professional development. This preliminary evaluation finds that the current procedures are failing
in both regards.
The next step in the research has been to set up a group of participants who will trial a new
approach based upon the principles of action research. The argument is that by approaching their
practice in a systematic and principled manner, teachers are able to demonstrate their fit for
purpose as well as develop themselves professionally and personally.
I will explain how I became interested in action research, what steps I took to find out more about
it and how I have started to introduce it into my daily practice. I will argue that action research is
the most appropriate method for practitioners within education and that this is an
unacknowledged fact. I will argue that this represents a failing on our part to acknowledge our
debt to a methodology that is still struggling within the positivist-biased atmosphere of the
academy.
Bibliography
ATKINSON, D. J. & BOLT, S. 2010. Using teaching observations to reflect upon and improve teaching practice in higher
education. Journal of the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning, 10, 1-19.
CARR, W. & KEMMIS, S. 1986. Becoming Critical: Knowing through Action Research, Victoria, Deakin University Press.
HANNAY, L. M., TELFORD, C. & SELLER, W. 2003. Making the Conceptual Shift- teacher performance appraisal as
professional growth. Educational Action Research, 11, 121-137.
HERR, K. & ANDERSON, G. L. 2005. The Action Research Dissertation: A Guide for Students and Faculty, Thousand Oaks,
Ca., Sage Publications, Inc.
HOLLAND, P. 2006. The case for expanding standards for teacher evaluation to include an instructional supervision
perspective. Journal of Personnel Evaluation in Education, 18, 67-77.
HOLLAND, P. E. & ADAMS, P. 2002. Through the horns of a dilemma between instructional supervision and the
summative evaluation of teaching. International Journal of Leadership in Education, 5, 227-247.
KEMMIS, S. & MCTAGGART, R. (eds.) 1988. The Action Research Planner, Victoria, Deakin University Press.
MCNIFF, J. & WHITEHEAD, J. 2011. All You Need to Know About Action Research, London, SAGE Publications Ltd.
PIGGOT-IRVINE, E. 2010. One school's approach to overcoming resistance and improving appraisal: Organizational
learning in action. Educational Management Administration & Leadership, 38, 229-245.
SOMEKH, B. 2006. Action Research: A Methodology for Change and Development, Maidenhead, Open University Press.

Redesigning an Academic Writing Course for higher level university students in Ukraine
Larysa Sanotska, Ivan Franko National University, Lviv
Research shows that an EAP course can be built according to perceived students needs and
constraints (Jordan 1997: 65). The Academic Writing Course for Ukrainian English Philology
bachelor students was designed by the author in response to rapidly changing needs and specific
challenges that academic mobility provides nowadays. Throughout the Course, which was taught
to several groups of bachelor students, the author observed the students and administered
formative and summative assessments. As a result, it was concluded that while writing essays and
papers the students still struggled with sentence / paper structure and misuse vocabulary. Analysis
of the data suggested guidelines to modify the Course in order to make it more effective for
Ukrainian university students. The presentation is based on the research which was aimed to
verify that the previously designed Course would benefit if translation techniques are
implemented. Translation activities in monolingual groups would serve to improve students
performance by activating schemata, increasing motivation, familiarizing students with style
peculiarities in both languages in order to distinguish between them. Eventually, students would
become more able to avoid native-language influence in writing in English. The research was
conducted in two groups of students: translation activities were administered in one of them.
Alongside questionnaires, survey and interviews, the author applied ethnography, as the content
she dealt with was specific considering the students history of learning L 2 (often leading to
jagged profiles) and L 2 - linguistic isolation. The author also noted and compared the data of the
students progress in two assessments.
Bibliography
Hyland, K. (2006). English for Academic Purposes. London and New York: Routledge.
Jordan, R.R. (1997). English for Academic Purposes: A Guide and Resource Book for Teachers. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Jordan, R.R. (1990). Academic Writing Course. London: Longman.
Paltridge, B. & A. Phakiti (2010). Continuum Companion to Research Methods in Applied Linguistics. London:
Continuum International Publishing Group.
Yakhontova, T. (2003). English Academic Writing. Lviv: Payis.