Collaborative Action Research and Its Impact
on English Curriculum Development in
Japanese High Schools
Kazuyoshi Sato, PhD
Yoshi@nufs.ac.jp
Nagoya University of Foreign Studies
Japan
AILA 2011
Introduction
Although action research for teacher development has
gained prominence in the current literature, there has
been little documentation as to how action research
influences teacher learning. Moreover, little is known
about how teachers have actually incorporated action
research into their practice and worked with other
teachers for curriculum development and school
improvement in their workplaces (Bransfor, Brown,
& Cocking, 2000; Zeichner & Noffke, 2001).
Definition of AR
“Action research is simply a form of selfreflective enquiry undertaken by participants
in order to improve the rationality and justice
of their own practices, their understanding of
these practices and the situations in which the
practices are carried out.” (Carr & Kemmis,
1986, p. 162)
A Spiral Process
(1) Plan
(2) Act
(3) Observe
(4) Reflect
(Kemmis & McTaggart, 1988)
Advantages of Collaborative AR
Burns (1999) identifies two advantages.
(1) “Collaborative action research processes
strengthen the opportunities for the results
of research on practice to be fed back into
educational systems in a more substantial
and critical way” (p. 13).
Advantages of Collaborative AR
(2) “They have the advantage of encouraging
teachers to share common problems and to
work cooperatively as a research community
to examine their existing assumptions, values
and beliefs” (p. 13).
Research Issue
“Published studies of AR in ELT are still
relatively small in number” and few were
reported “by teachers of AR conducted for
their own professional development within
a larger collaborative grouping” (Burns,
2005, p. 248).
Literature Review
Mutoh, Sato, Hakamada, Tsuji, & Shintani
(2009) reported on the results of a yearlong collaborative AR project between
university teachers and high school
teachers in a central area of Japan.
The paper is available from
www3.nufs.ac.jp/~yoshi/index.html
Participants
・15 teachers (1 elementary, 7 junior HS, 7
senior HS teachers) including two native
English speaking teachers participated in
the AR project in 2007.
・10 teachers were enrolled in an MA TESOL
program, while 5 were not.
Participants
AR Program at NUFS
(1) Orientation (May)
・Introduction about AR
・Identify issues and setting up goals
・Make an AR plan and a lesson plan
・Revise a lesson plan based on an adviser’s
comment
・Try it out
AR Program at NUFS
(2) Monthly report (from June to Feb.)
・After a monthly workshop about a different
topic, participants shared their reports and
received comments from advisers and other
teachers.
AR Program at NUFS
(3) Mid-term report (August)
・Conduct a survey (interview, etc.) at the
end of the 1st term
・Report the results
・Revise a lesson plan
・Try it out
AR Program at NUFS
(4) Final presentation (March)
・Conduct a survey (interview, etc.) at the
end of the third term
・Report the results
・Make a booklet
(available from
www.nufs.ac.jp/local_interchange/workshop/index.html
Data Collection
Multiple data sources were collected
including
・interviews (12 questions) with 15 teachers
(in March)
・monthly reports, mid-term and final reports
・classroom observation (4 JHS and 4 SHS
teachers)
Findings
(1) All 15 teachers reported that AR was useful to
reflect on how they taught.
(2) 9 teachers reported that they received ideas from
other teachers.
(3) 6 teachers said advisors’ comments were useful.
(4) 12 teachers reported that they could improve
their practices and build their confidence
through continuous reflection through AR.
Findings
(5) 9 teachers indicated some difficulties implementing
AR, including adapting new ideas to their classroom
context, finding appropriate materials, developing
collaboration with fellow teachers at the same school,
and learning how to make an appropriate survey.
(6) 11 teachers out of 15 reported that they had almost
no chances or talked with only one or two colleagues
about new ideas.
(7) Only 4 teachers shared new ideas with other teachers
in their schools.
(8) Only one teacher could utilize AR for the curriculum
development in his school.
Participants and Data Collection
(a follow-up study over four years)
Year
2007
2008
2009
2010
Total
15
20
18
17
Age/Years of teaching
AR / Ob / Int
AR / Ob / Int
AR / Ob / Int
AR / Ob / Int
○/○/
○
○/○/
○
○/○/
○
○/○/
○
○/○/
○/○/
○
○/○/
Midori (SHS)
52 / 29
Hiroko (JHS)
56 / 32
Tomoko (JHS)
38 / 15
○/○/
○
Momoko (SHS)
50 / 3
○/○/
○
Toru (SHS)
○/○/
○/○/
○
○/
/○
○/○/
○
○/○/
○/
/○
○/○/
Research Questions
(1) How did these five EFL teachers change their
initial beliefs through the continuous
collaborative AR?
(2) How did these EFL teachers learn to teach
through collaborative AR?
(3) What did they learn from the continuous
collaborative AR?
(4) Why did these EFL teachers have difficulty
sharing their new ideas and working with other
teachers for curriculum development in their
workplaces?
Results (Final interview Data)
1. How did these EFL teachers change their
initial beliefs through the continuous
collaborative AR?
(1) Initial beliefs about language learning and
teaching (Two teachers were not sure)
・I did not have any clear beliefs. I just taught as I
was taught as a student (Momoko).
・I did not have any beliefs as I started my carrier as
a music teacher (Toru).
1. How did these EFL teachers change their
initial beliefs through the continuous
collaborative AR?
(1) Initial beliefs (traditional teaching)
・ I taught grammar explicitly because I did not
know any other ways. I just had my students
prepare for exams by using many mechanical
drills (Midori).
・ I relied on pattern practice, drills, and
memorization (Hiroko).
・ I introduced new words, had my students translate
each sentence, and practiced chorus reading
(Tomoko).
1. How did these EFL teachers change their
initial beliefs through the continuous
collaborative AR?
(2) All five teachers changed or developed their
initial beliefs.
・Integrating language skills is good (Momoko,
Toru)
・It is essential for students to actually use the
language and recycle it. I also think having student
notice is important. (Midori)
1. How did these EFL teachers change their
initial beliefs through the continuous
collaborative AR?
(2) All five teachers changed or developed their
initial beliefs.
・It is important to reduce teacher talk and increase
student talk. I also think student-student
interaction is essential. I want my students to
enjoy using English. (Hiroko)
・Students need many chances to interact with each
other, not like teacher-centered class that I used to
rely on. (Tomoko)
2. How did these EFL teachers learn to teach
through collaborative AR?
All five teachers went through similar stages which
included:
(1)Challenge their beliefs through TESOL classes
(2) Model teachers who have done similar AR
(3) Engage in trial and error teaching through
collaborative AR (at least one to two years)
(4) Build confidence in teaching by actually seeing
students’ change
2. How did these EFL teachers learn to teach
through collaborative AR?
(Stage 1) They learned theories about SLA and SLT
through TESOL classes and challenged their
beliefs
・I was shocked to learn that imitation is not
effective in SLA. (Tomoko)
・My preconception about language learning was
destroyed. (Momoko)
・I was astonished by SLA. I learned that my
teaching style was out of date. (Hiroko)
2. How did these EFL teachers learn to teach
through collaborative AR?
(Stage 1) They learned theories about SLA and
SLT through TESOL classes and challenged their
beliefs
・I was shocked to learn about how to teach
grammar in SLT. Now I can follow steps based on
the theory. (Midori)
・I think theories are useful. For example, I can
explain to my students why my activities are
important. (Toru)
2. How did these EFL teachers learn to teach
through collaborative AR?
(Stage 1) However, they could not apply theories
into practices soon.
・I could not make use of the theories in my classes
immediately. I put them into practices little by
little. (Momoko)
・Although I learned theories, it took me about one
year to be able to incorporate them in my class.
(Tomoko)
2. How did these EFL teachers learn to teach
through collaborative AR?
(Stage 2) All modeled teachers who had done
similar AR.
・I was not sure, but I modeled the handouts by Ms.
Tsuji, who had tried AR about language
integration. (Toru)
・I learned how to integrate speaking and writing
from Ms. Takahashi. I modeled her. (Midori)
・I modeled Midori’s handouts about how to teach
grammar. (Tomoko, Hiroko)
2. How did these EFL teachers learn to teach
through collaborative AR?
(Stage 2) All five teachers learned from other
teachers and advisors.
・I learned many things from teachers who had
taught the same grade level. I adapted their ideas
in my class. (Tomoko)
・Advisors’ comments were very helpful. They
pointed out what I did not notice through my AR.
(Midori)
2. How did these EFL teachers learn to teach
through collaborative AR?
(Stage 3) All engaged in trial and error teaching
through collaborative AR (at least one to two
years)
・I just modeled other teachers in my first-year AR.
I began to adapt and modify their handouts in the
second and third year according to my teaching
context. (Momoko)
・I just tried AR without fully understanding it in
my first year. Then, in my second and third year, I
could increase communicative activities little by
little in my class. (Hiroko)
2. How did these EFL teachers learn to teach
through collaborative AR?
(Stage 4) All built confidence in teaching by actually
seeing students’ change.
・I was surprised to see that my students started to
focus on communicative activities and none of
them were sleeping in my class. They even got a
better score compared with other teachers’ classes.
(Midori)
・My students started to talk longer by using
conversation strategies and write more in the
second semester. That impressed me. (Toru)
3. What did they learn from the continuous
collaborative AR?
Reflection, experimentation, learning from students
・I used to quit using a new activity once it did not
work well. Then, through AR, I came to reflect on
my teaching. I started to think why it did not work
well and how I could modify my handout.
(Midori)
・I started to reflect on my teaching, trying a minor
change to improve my class. (Toru)
・I learned the importance of learning from my
students to improve my class. Now I always think
how my students are learning. (Tomoko)
4. Why did these EFL teachers have difficulty
sharing their new ideas and working with
other teachers for curriculum development in
their workplaces?
(1) Weak teaching cultures (lack of communication
and collaboration; see Sato, 2002; Sato &
Kleinsasser, 2004)
・Teachers are busy with students’ behavioral
problems and school events, so they are not
concerned about teaching. (Tomoko)
・Most teachers mind their own way of teaching.
(Momoko)
4. Why did these EFL teachers have difficulty
sharing their new ideas and working with
other teachers for curriculum development in
their workplaces?
(1) Weak teaching cultures
・Last year I could share my handouts with my
colleague. However, she used them as she liked.
She skipped some activities. (Hiroko)
・We had a lesson study, and an inspector came
from the prefectural board of education.
However, the teacher taught in a different way,
having a rehearsal a couple of times, only for that
occasion. (Momoko)
4. Why did these EFL teachers have difficulty
sharing their new ideas and working with
other teachers for curriculum development in
their workplaces?
(2)Need both top-down and bottom-up processes
・This is a top-down curriculum reform project. So,
there are teachers who are forced to do. They still
think the project cannot prepare students for
exams at the bottom of their heart. (Midori)
・I could collaborate with the same grade level
teachers but not with other teachers. In addition to
a weekly department meeting, we can talk about
teaching whenever necessary. (Toru)
Summary/Implications
1. Continuous collaborative AR together with
theories is effective to change individual teachers’
beliefs and practices.
2. Teachers have learned from other teachers and
advisors, following models other teachers have
proven successful.
3. It takes at least one to two-year trail and error
teaching before adapting new ideas and theories
into their classes.
Summary/Implications
4. It takes two to three years before teachers develop
confidence by actually seeing their students’
successful learning and change in their classrooms
and from AR results.
5. Continuous collaborative AR helps teachers form
a habit of reflection, experimentation, and learning
from students.
6. It is very difficult to involve other teachers in
curriculum development in their workplaces due
to weak teaching cultures.
Conclusion
Collaborative AR empowers teachers to be
reflective teachers and AR “has a potential to be a
powerful agent of educational change” (Milles,
2003, p. v). However, to make it happen, both topdown and bottom-up initiatives are necessary to
change weak teaching cultures. Without changing
school cultures, individual change is possible but
curriculum and school improvement may not be
possible (see Murphey & Sato, 2005, Sato &
Kleinsasser, 2004; Sato & Takahashi, 2008).