A Quibble or Two With Nunan's Ideas on Action Research Stephen Kemmis (2007) has said that, "Action research

aims at changing three things: practitioners' practices, their understanding of their practices, and the conditions in which they practice. These three things-practices, how we understand them, and the conditions that shape them-are inevitably and incessantly bound together with each other." As a language teacher, I realize that what I teach, how I perceive my teaching, and the environment in which I teach are all constantly interacting with each other. So for me, the major concern about action research is how to effectively observe what is happening in my classes without stepping away from my central role as teacher--how to in fact be both teacher and researcher at one time. on how to do just that. Nunan focuses not on a particular teacher or a particular classroom, but on an in-service program designed to give teachers the basic skills they need to implement action research for themselves. The participants are part of the AMEP program, which, due to its large student population and heterogeneous student make-up, uses, "a localized or school-based curriculum model based on a learner-centered philosophy." (Nunan, 1990) The teachers are the main drivers of the curriculum within their schools and the in-service training aims to, "provide teachers with skills in curriculum development and classroom research and evaluation." (ibid.) Each inservice participant prepared for the program by recording 15 minutes of a lesson in which they were trying something new or in which some problems or difficulties arose. The in-service action research was composed of five stages. The first stage consisted of observing a classroom and becoming aware of how participants own, "preconceptions and beliefs" were carried into the classroom. The middle stages helped participants to develop the skills they David Nunan's (1990) Action research in the language classroom does an admirable job of providing me with some ideas

needed to use and modify observational tools, to identify issues which were, "amenable to investigation," and to practice evaluating their own classroom. In the final stage of the in-service, participants developed a question which they could carry forward and use to implement action research in their own classes. The clear way in which Nunan describes each step of the in-service makes the article not only interesting as a kind of case study of one teachertraining program but also useful as a point by point outline that any teacher can use as the basis for implementing action-research within their own schools. I was especially impressed with the efforts the in-service, and hence the article itself, made to ensure that participants were aware of how attitudes and beliefs can impact the way in which we carry out observation. Developing this higher awareness, thinking of the 'why' of your beliefs, while simultaneously putting those beliefs into practice by doing the 'what' of teaching, is the difference between being just a thoughtful teacher and being an actively reflective teacher. The way Nunan explains how groups evaluated the observed lessons and the examples he chose from each group highlights the difference of opinions and the lively negotiation that must have been going on during the in-service. For example, when one group identified, 'lesson cohesion' as a lesson quality they most liked, and another group stated that the very same observed lesson had, "no cohesion", (ibid.) it becomes quite clear that teachers had to contend with the fact that what they saw in a lesson was not always what was noticed by another observer. The contrasting opinions and differing points of reference between teachers allows Nunan to make a strong implicit argument for the benefits of action research with a collaborative component. The article provides an excellent way for teachers to familiarize themselves with action-research, but I do have one quibble: running throughout the article there does seems to be an underlying assumption that there is in fact a way to teach which could be considered, "good teaching." For example, when teachers evaluated the sample lesson by

writing down the three points they liked the best and three points they didn't like, Nunan writes that, "most groups liked the use of authentic materials. This led to an animated discussion on why authentic materials were considered good." their values or beliefs. While this was perhaps enjoyable for those Similarly, the "Task Analysis" observation tool engaged in the discussion, I don't think it would lead anyone to reexamine contains the point, "The activities were challenging but not threatening" to be judged on a four point scale where 1 is, "not at all" and 4 is "completely." I can think of some instances where a whiff of a threat--to personal identity, belief systems or a host of other factors--might be important to an English lesson and student development. I wonder if the 'like/don't like' and 'not at all/completely' type of dichotomy might not work better if both aspects of the dichotomy where framed in such a way as being useful to different learners in different situations. For example, while teachers might personally like and be By placing 'authentic materials' invested in using 'authentic materials', this does not necessarily mean that authentic materials are inherently good. and 'controlled materials' on opposite sides of a scale, teachers would move "beyond black and white ratings," and be less constricted in what tool and methodologies they viewed as useful for their classroom (Fanselow, 2012). But perhaps I am just missing the forest for the trees. The point of the article was not to present a set of concrete principles about teaching, but to give points which could guide a teachers as they moved toward implementing action research themselves. And in this, the article succeeds quite well. By keeping the focus of the article on one group of teachers and the way in which they grew in awareness to the point that they could develop a serious research question to tackle in their own classrooms, the article helped me realize that my own, earlier anxiety about action research was perhaps unfounded. Implementing action research, it seems, does not have to turn a teacher into a distanced observer, holding a part of themselves back. Instead, action research can help a teacher become more

aware of how they are already observing themselves and what is going on in their own classes; it allows teachers to focus not on problems, but on solutions waiting to be found. that moment at a higher level. Now I can see that action research will not take me out of the moment of teaching, but instead, help me be aware of

Sources: Kemmis, S. (2007), "Action Research As a Practice-Changing Practice." Opening Address for the Spanish Collaborative Action Research Network Conference, University of Valladolid. Retrieved 17 January, 2011 from http://www.infor.uva.es/~amartine/MASUP/Kemmis_2007.pdf Nunan, D. (1990). "Action research in the language classroom." In J. Richards & D. Nunan (Eds.). Second Language Teacher Education (pp.6281). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Fanselow, J. (29 April, 2011). "Beyond black and white ratings." You Call Yourself a Teacher, Peace Corps Worldwide. Retrieved 17 January 2011 from http://peacecorpsworldwide.org/teaching/2011/04/29/beyond-black-andwhite-ratings/