An INTRODUCTION to Praxial Research

This chapter is a general introduction to the study in the following order:

Significance of the study, the research questions, research assumptions, the
definition of key terms, and the background and setting.

Significance of Study
There are three main purposes of this study:
1. To improve classroom instruction through inquiry and understanding;
2. To merge classroom instruction with Design-Based Research;
3. To encourage student participation and classroom intersubjectivity.
In the current post-method era of Language Pedagogy, there exist gaps
between theory and teaching practice in the classroom (Kumaravadivelu,
2006). It is becoming more apparent that improving the language classroom
will rely on the pro-active efforts of both teacher and students. Such a
process essentially requires teacher practitioner research which encourages
students to participate reflectively along with the teacher as they attempt to
merge theory and practice in a contextual setting (Brown, 1992; Schon,
1987; Wells, 1999). In this study, the research process involves collecting
data that can be analyzed interpretively during the instructional activities.
Using Allwrights Exploratory Practice as Design-based Research, this study
will focus on improving the classroom environment through reflection and
analysis in a natural setting where classroom activities are used to generate
data (Allwright & Hanks, 2009; Brown, 1992). The purpose is to merge
research into the classroom setting without interfering or impinging on
normal classroom activities.
The significance of such an approach is evident in the need for teachers to
conduct their own classroom research so as to improve their own classroom
practice.
It is generally accepted that language teaching has entered a post-method
period characterized by theories which are abstract and difficult to
conceptualize in the classroom (Allwright & Hanks, 2009; Johnson, 2004;
Kumaravadivelu, 2006).
Another reason for the divide between theory and practice relates to the
nature of positivistic and rationalistic research that has dominated Second
Language Acquisition (SLA), and the importance on separating language
competence and language performance (Johnson, 2004; Marchenkova,
2005). In this study, language competence and language performance are
viewed from a relativistic point of view, where competence and performance
are variables that should not be separated, and analysis or assessment is
performed dynamically by the instructor as researcher (Swain, Kinnear, &
Steinman, 2011). Classroom research conducted by teachers is becoming a
necessary requirement for professional development, but more importantly

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

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

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

Research Assumptions

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

improvement of instructional design. It is inevitable that the participants will

develop their own meanings, and draw their own conclusions.
The goal of the research is to rely as much as possible on the
participants world views of the situation being studied (Creswell, 2009, p.
9). A social constructivist perspective then views the instructor as a
facilitator of knowledge, and puts emphasis on the learner and participation.
While traditional language pedagogy has produced various methods based
on popular learning theories, few of those theories or methods are based on
constructivist views of learning and meaning. In this case, classroom
activities are viewed for their role in getting students to participate
meaningful activities. Pragmatically, the researcher is concerned with
understanding the issues contextually, and the actions and experiences that
are involved in a situated classroom.
Design-based studies that focus on improving instructional activities by
examining the activity in context are needed. To improve practice, DesignBased Research (DBR), the classroom environment can be improved upon. It
is also assumed that many academic based language classrooms that focus
on tasks, projects and problem-solving do so at the expense of meaning. In
other words, teachers assume that by completing a task-based project the
students will reach the proper outcomes, but this researcher is making the
assumption that making and constructing meaning must be part of the task
which takes place through dialogue with More Knowledgeable Others (MKO).
Learning in groups is a necessary means of collaboration, but there must be
someone available, who can facilitate meaningful dialogue. Along with the
assumptions related to ontology, this study holds assumptions related to
language learning as well:
1. Language is acquired through meaningful participation;
2. Learning everyday knowledge and academic knowledge is
significantly different;
3. Student-Teacher relationships are vital to language acquisition.
In this study limited English proficient students are required to learn
academic content in the target language, with little or no emphasis on
language structure or grammar. Few of these students have had the
opportunity to use English in a social setting where meaningful situations
occur, and creating activities which are authentic is proving to be more
difficult to accomplish. While Task-based approaches have tried to create
meaningful learning, they tend to be focused on the task with meaning as a
byproduct. This is problematic for both teacher and student, and solving the
dilemma requires an understanding between the participants. In most
language classrooms where a native English speaker is with non-native
speakers, the cultural divides create significant misunderstandings which
must be overcome in order for learning to take place.
It is the general assumption of the researcher then, that because English
Language Teaching (ELT) and Language Pedagogy are outgrowths of Second
Language Acquisition (SLA), Psychology, Anthropology, Cognitive science and

a host of others fields, traditional research is not directly applicable to a

contextualized classroom. Within Language Pedagogy there is no methodical
consensus or approach, and ELT professionals are dependent on research
that has a non-Education focus, but it doesnt take a scientist to explain that
few language learners, if given the choice would choose to learn a language
in a classroom. This is the dilemma that English language learners and
English language teachers face, a task with no clear theory or direction.
Kumaravadivelu and others suggest that the ELT profession has entered a
post-method era, and that theory and practice dont mesh (Kumaravadivelu,
2006; Allwright & Hanks, 2009). Allwright and others take the predicament
further and suggest that research based on traditional views of science dont
mesh with the classroom (Allwright & Hanks, 2009; Johnson 2004; Wells,
1999). Regardless, Kumaravadivelu suggests that ELT look to research in the
areas of Language, Learning and Teaching to guide our instructional activities
(Kumaravadivelu, 2006).
Having been fortunate to teach in Thailand for nearly 20 years, this
researcher has recognized a few trends, and it is this researchers makes the
assumption that qualitative data is more reliable than quantitative as they
relate to the classroom. During a teaching assignment in an English
Programme at a primary school, the researcher noticed a proclivity for his
students language abilities to resemble the bell curve: a small percentage
being productive users; a majority as occasional users, while another lesser
percentage as limited users, but he wasnt sure why. The notion of
conducting research to find the underlying reasons seemed excessive, when
getting to know the students and their parents were the first step.
The teacher discovered that the three levels directly corresponded to
the time students spent in after school tutorials. Intrigued, the teacher met
with his students first-grade and subsequent teachers to discover that those
groupings were accurate groupings that described that class since their first
day of school. That process was research. While the assessment was not
intended to be scientific, it illustrates the importance of qualitative data, an
area that has been neglected in the field of Language Pedagogy and ELT
research. If it wasnt for the extensive time the teacher spent talking to
students and parents, he would not have discovered that the fluent speaking
students had been participating in authentic target language dialogues with
native speakers since they were small children. Until then, teachers had
assumed that student skills were developed after subsequent years in the
English-only classroom, and those who couldnt use English must have
learning deficiencies. Once the learning phenomenon was uncovered, there
was little need to consult a scientific theory on second language acquisition
to affirm the suspension that language learners need to have meaningful
interactions with expert speakers. Those bilingual students had gained their
skills outside the classroom and brought their skills inside the classroom, and
those learners who did not spend time with native English speakers,
remained limited proficient speakers from one subsequent grade level to the
next.

As a teacher practitioner in the field of Education, this instructor began to

see the importance of viewing the classroom socially.

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

could only be analyzed by separating competence and performance, creating

a closed-system that could be analyzed; Chomsky had no interest in
dialogue, and in the social setting (Chomsky, 2006). Bakhtin, on the other
hand analyzed language in its natural state, as an opensystem, with actual
speakers in constant dialogue and interaction in different contexts, or what
he referred to as heteroglossia (Johnson, 2004; Marchenkova, 2005). This is a
significant departure from positivist or rationalist views of language as a
closed system with important research implications. Dialogue, on its surface
is simply interaction between participants, but on a deeper level dialogue
involves intent, relationships, and cultural idiosyncrasies.
Intersubjectivity and Dialogue: When viewing language as heteroglossia,
researchers must consider the dynamic relationships in a classroom which
are contingent on intersubjectivity and dialogue. Intersubjectivity suggests a
mutual understanding or acceptance between people, which are difficult to
develop or obtain in the standard classroom where the teacher is regarded
as the lead authority, and where there are large classrooms. Without
intersubjectivity within a classroom, dialogue can become limited and
strained and restrict development (Wells, 1999).
Dynamic Assessment: If teaching practitioners are going to conduct
research in their own classes, a suitable form of assessment should be used.
Dynamic Assessment is a process-oriented form of assessment that accepts
the values and beliefs of the context as a social activity (Swain, Kinnear, &
Steinman, 2011). The instructor or assessor can mediate the process to
encourage certain outcomes which becomes a suitable tool for teachers as
researchers. In this study, dynamic assessment takes place lesson as part of
the instruction.

Background

The interest in learning a second language has become a worldwide

phenomenon. In Thailand, which is a member of the Association of Southeast
Asian Nations (ASEAN), students learn English as a second (ESL) or foreign
(EFL) language on a compulsory basis. Many hope to use English in their
future employment as ASEAN has adopted English as its official linguafranca, but most of those students will never use English in a meaningful
context in or out of the classroom while others may even become bilingual.
There are disagreements as to why this occurs, and how to approach the
dilemma. In relation to this, Thai
International colleges are experiencing a unique contextual setting in which
limited
English proficient learners must learn academic content in English; some
students become proficient while others do not. How researchers approach
this dilemma is varied, but unless teachers and students are involved in the
research process, society may never uncover the discrepancies. Whether in
Thailand, California, or around the world, learning and teaching a language
directly relates to the contextual setting, and the intersubjectivity or mutual
understanding between participants. In dealing with contextual issues,

Language pedagogy has evolved significantly, and will continue to, but for
the fraught teacher and learner in the classroom, language pedagogy
exhibits a huge gap between theory and practice.
For the struggling language learner, there are significant differences between
learning a Language and learning Academic content, theoretical concepts
formulated and discussed extensively by both Halliday and Cummins
(Schleppegrell, 2004). The implications being that instructional activities
must be significantly varied to accommodate the differences between, what
Cummins labeled Basic Interpersonal Communicative Skills (BICS), and
Cognitive Academic Language Proficiency (CALP). This is especially true for
learners in a non-English speaking environment where learners lack
language opportunities, and seldom acquire BICS that will help them
construct knowledge and succeed at an International college. The
significance in the two distinctions has drawn the interest of Krashen and
Brown (2007), who analyzed and presented a framework for studying CALP
by categorizing it with having two components:
1. Academic language: complex syntax, academic vocabulary, &
complex discourse.
2. Academic content: subjects such as algebra, history, literature & etc.
Their paper, while intended to deepen understanding of academic
proficiency, and to encourage research and discussion, is silent about
classroom intersubjectivity. Many in the field of Language Pedagogy such as
Allwright, Johnson, Kumaravadivelu, Marchenkova, and Wells all suggest that
the ELT profession has entered a post-method era, where there has been a
gap between theory and practice. The gap exists in part, due to ontological
preferences that influence the nature of research designs which traditionally
view language in a closed system, rather than in an open system like a
classroom. Regardless, Kumaravadivelu acknowledges three distinct
categories of methods that teachers will inevitably employ in a language
classroom: Language-Centered, Learner-Centered and Learning-Centered
methods. As he explains, Language-Centered methods focus on the quality
and aspects of the target language; Learner-Centered approaches focus on
the needs of the learner as in an English for Specific Purposes course; but in
a Learning-Centered approach the learning process is the focus, which
includes all the dynamics of a classroom including the atmosphere of the
class to the relationship between teacher and students (Kumaravadivelu,
2003; 2006). In this study, the teacher as researcher takes a LearningCentered approach to examine and reflect on the process to improve
classroom practice by means of Design-Based Research (DBR) (Brown, 1992).
Within the DBR model, research guides the development of the classroom
activities (Pardo-Ballester & Rodrguez,
2009). A main instrument in the research process is reflection which is
conducted by the participants, in this case instructor and students, to include
the researcher as instructor (Schon, 1987). This study is a snap-shop of the
instructors efforts to improve classroom practice by means of DBR, using a
specific approach designed for M.A. TESL candidates. Known as Exploratory

Practice (EP), EP is a principle-based research model that practicing teachers

can follow to conduct their own classroom research (Allwright & Hanks,
2009). Of utmost concern in EP is not the research or its design but
improving the quality of life of the students (Table 5). This is a major
distinction between EP and Action Research (AR) (Allwright & Hanks, 2009).
AR is more concerned with gathering data which leads towards answers to
perplexing problems.
EP works to improve the process of learning through understanding, by
encouraging learners to develop their own learning. This is achieved,
according to Allwright by regarding learners as capable individuals (see Table
3). To generate data, the researcher used Paulo Freires Problem-posing
process as classroom activities to encourage student involvement and
development (see Table 6). This process was used because of its emphasis
on dialogue and co-construction of meaning between teacher and student in
the learning process (Freire, 1970; Schleppegrell & Bowman, 1995). This
process is detailed in the 1982 book, Language and Culture in Conflict:
Problem-Posing in the ESL Classroom, by Nina Wallerstein, which chronicles
the commitment to develop students critical thinking skills (Schleppegrell &
Bowman, 1995). It was unfortunate that this researcher could not find a
copy. For student assessment and data analysis, the instructor looked to
Vygotskys and Bakhtins views on language which places emphasis on the
relationship between the participants. In this regard, practice becomes a
reflective process that continues towards refinement (Schon, 1987). When
language pedagogy synthesizes teacher and student agency, with reflective
practice, in a contextual setting, it allows activities to be directly applicable
to the situated classroom.

Setting

Students who attend Burapha University International College (BUUIC) are

generally affluent, ESL speakers predominantly from Thailand and China,
with exchange students from all parts of the world, who are attending BUUIC
for language development in preparation for the business influx from ASEAN.
The college maintains a business curriculum with majors in Marketing,
Human Resource Development, Logistics, Management and Business
Administration. While the courses are delivered in English, it is generally
accepted that the dominant community characteristics are Thai, and it is
common for even native English speaking students to use Thai if they stay
longer than one year. ESL students who arrive at BUUIC generally fall into
four different unofficial English levels which correspond to their prior English
experiences; The College does not confer official levels, and the levels in
Table 1 are based on the instructors experience during the past four years.
The instructor noticed students with similar prior experiences, demonstrated
similar speaking skills. Those students at level one, who had studied English
in primary and secondary schools, yet were unable to speak. Level two
students were able to speak a few words but had no ability to converse.
Students at level three could maintain a basic conversation concerning every
day social skills, while level four students could discuss a number of topics

related to academic content. This distinction becomes important for learners,

especially lower level speakers to realize that it is not their intellect that
interferes with their language acquisition but lack of speaking opportunities.
When students arrive at the university, the lower level students have a
tendency to feel incapable, and that they dont have the ability to learn
English as the higher level students. Getting lower level students to
understand that they would improve speaking when they participated
became a major emphasis during the study.
Table 1 Speaking Scale
Level Prior English Experience
1 _ Studied English in local school- never seldom used English in a social
setting _ with non-fluent instructors
2 _ Studied English in local school _ Seldom - Occasionally used English in a
social setting _ with non-fluent instructors
3 _ Studied English in local school _ Occasionally Often used English in
social settings _ with fluent English instructors
4 _ Studied English in local and abroad _ English only context _ with fluent
English instructors
All BUUIC students, other than native English speakers are required to take
an Intensive English summer course, along with English for Academic
Purposes, English for Specific Purposes and Academic Writing within their
first year. These courses are all taught by native speaking instructors with
bachelors, masters and PhDs. Courses are conducted in three hour blocked
sessions, once a week for sixteen weeks.