See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/292187039

Action Research in Second Language Teacher Education

Chapter · March 2009

DOI: 10.1017/9781139042710.038

CITATIONS READS
121 26,365

1 author:

Anne Burns
UNSW Sydney
200 PUBLICATIONS 7,999 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Anne Burns on 02 July 2022.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

The Cambridge Guide to

.anguae
izi
i_z cuacation
Edited by
Anne Burns
jack C Richards

., CAMBRIDGE
UNTVERSITY PRESS
 ,— •1

CHAPTER 2
AcIon earc In Secud Language
rcer Edicaton
Anne Burns

NTRODUCTION
Until the late 1980s, action research
(AR) had relatively little impact on
teacher education. Its emergence second lanl
as a vehicle for professional dev
growing interest in learner-centere elopment para
d curriculum design (Nunan 1989
classroom-based research (Allwr ; Johnson 1989
ight 1988; van Lier 1988; see also
The notion of the teacher as a self— Mc Kay, Chaptei
reflective, inquiring, and critically
(e.g., Zeichner and Liston 1996; see mo tivated practit
also Burton, Chapter 30) also acceler
AR in ELT environments, as did the ated inten
advocacy of the concept of the “teache
(Allwright and Bailey 1991; Nunan r as resean
1989).
The shifts in goals and models of teac
her education from the teacher as
the teacher as creative “problem solv “operativ
er” and decision maker (Roberts 1998
of constructivist perspectives (Willia ) and the ad
ms and Burden 1997) in teacher edu
a productive framework for the ado cation have crc
ption of AR into second languag
Underlying these perspectives is the e teacher educa
view that teachers “will make thei
ideas and theories with which they r own sense o
are presented in ways that are person
individual constructs his or her own al to them...
reality” (Williams and Burden 1997
in this chapter, 1 first provide brie : 2).
f definitions and explanations of the
and processes of AR and offer com mnaor COflC
parisons of AR with other research
consider the scope and impact of par adigms. I I
action research in English as a sec
education settings. This discussion ond lang uage teac
is followed by an analysis of the ran
settings in which AR is integrated ge of ways
into teacher education. I conclude
relating to the further develop by raising iss
ment of AR in language teacher edu
cation.

Sco AND OFNIT3ONS

WHAT IS ACTION ESARCH?
Action research is the combinatio
n and interaction of two modes
and research. The action is located of activity acti —

within the ongoing social processes

of particu
19C Anne Burns

societal contexts, whether they he classrooms, schools, or whole organizations, and typically
involves developments and interventions into those irocesses to bring about improvement
and change. The research is located within the systematic observation and analysis of
the developments and changes that eventuate in order to identify the underlying rationale
br (he action and to make further changes as required based on findings and outcomes,
The driving purpose br the AR process is to bridge the gap between the ideal (the IfloSt
effective ways of doing things) and the real (the actual ways of do;iig things) in the social
situal on.
The AR process itself has been characterized as a spiral or cycle ol movements between
action and research (Kemmis and McTaggart 1988: Burns 1999). As the researcher plans
and undertakes actions to enhance the current situation, she also deliberately observes
and documents what happens as a result of these actions. Often, the results of changes
are unpredictable and reveal new or unexpected avenues for further action, which is then
observed and documented further. Although more complex and extended descriptions of
the steps in AR have been proposed (e.g., Burns 1999; Cohen. Manion, and Morrison
2000; Hopkins 1993; McNiff 1988). the most widely known model is that of Kemniis and
McTaggart (1988: 10):

develop a plan of critically informed action to improve what is already

happening
act to implement the plan
observe the effects of the critically informed action in the context in which it
occurs
reflect on these effects as the basis for further planning, subsequent critically
informed action and so on, through a succession of stages.

Teachers new to research sometimes struggle to perceive how AR is positioned in

relation to more familiar and better established research approaches. As Cohen and Manion
<1994: 186) point out, the terms action and research “when conjoined in this way lie as
uneasy bedfellows.” There is insufficient space to describe these relationships in detail
here (but see Burns 2005: 59—60); however, as a way of briefly outlining the relation
ships, Table 1 identifies some of the main distinctions among basic, applied and action
research.

OVERVEW
ACTtON RESEARCH N SECOND LANGUAGE TEACHER EDUCATtON
Action research on the part of language teachers has been seen as a way to bridge the
gulf between researchers and teachers (e.g., Brindley 1990; Edge 2001) and to encour
age teachers to adopt an investigative stance toward their own classroom practices (e.g.,
Gebhard 2005; Nunan 1989). Taking these concepts further, several writers (e.g..
Burns 1999; Crookes 1993; Roberts 1993) advocate a collaborative approach (see also
Johnston, Chapter 24, on collaborative teacher development) where research is done by
combinations of researchers and teachers (also with the possible involvement of stu
dents, parents. and administrators’) as a more effective and mutually supportive way
to achieve desired outcomes. AR has also been perceived as a form of profession
alization that fits well within a “developrnental,’ or transformative, model of teacher
education (e.g., Wallace 1991, 1998; Richards and Farrell 2005; see also Freeman,
Chapter 1).
 Action Research in Second Language Teacher Education
21
r
Research Philosophical ‘1ain Criteria for
type Assumptions Purpose tuethods Outcomes judgement
Basic (Jniversai truths To establish Quantitative Development of Objectivity, verificati
generalizahie relationships approaches, theory. of theory,
across time and among hypothesis testing, generalizability, rigor
space are achieved phenomena, test control of and reliability of
through scientific theory, and variables, rigorous research methods,
enquiry. generate new sampling, published through
knowledge. refereed, scholarly
jouna1s.
Applied Societal To generate Qualitative and Development of Objectivity, rigour am
phenomena can be understanding of quantitative generalizable scientific insights for
scientifically human behavior approaches, data theoretical application to social
studied and and problems for collection directed knowledge that situations, published
understood. the purpose of toward ensuring can be applied to through specialized,
intervention, reliability and the social refereed, applied
V
validity, situation. journals.
Action People within To develop Mainly qualitative, Development of Subjectivity, feasibilit’
research social situations solutions to interpretive, cases action to effect, trustworthiness, and
can solve problems studied reflectively change and resonance of research
problems through identified within through cyclical improvement, outcomes with those ii
self-study and one’s own social observational and and deeper the same or similar
intervention, environment. nonobservational understanding in social situation.
means. one’s own social
situation.
V

Source: Burns, A. (2005). Action research: An evolving paradigm? Langu

age Teaching, 38(2), 61.
Table I Major characteristics of basic, applied, and action researc
h

Among the ways that AR has been onented towards various purpos
es of teacher education
in the second language teaching field are the following:
• To address and find solutions to particular problems in a specifi
c teaching or
learning situation (Edge 2001; Hadley 2003)
‘ To underpin and investigate curriculum innovation and to unders
tand the pro
cesses that occur as part of educational change (Lotheringlon
2002; Mathew
1997)
a To provide a vehicle for reducing gaps between academic researc
h findings and
practical classroom applications (Mcleod 2003; Sayer 2005)
To facilitate the professional development of reflective teache
rs (Coles and
Quirke 2001; Kitchen and Jeurissen 2004)
To acquaint teachers with research skills and to enhance their knowle
dge of
conducting research (Burns and Hood 1995; Crookes and Chand
ler 2001)
To enhance the development of teachers’ personal practical theorie
s (Golombek
1998)
(Adapted from Burns 2005: 62)
92 Anne Burns

There is still very limited evidence to indicate the extent of actual AR practice in
teacher
education. Borg (2006) contends thai ill many contexts internationally the conditjons
fur
Leacher research are inhospitable and that in reality AR is well developed mainly
in contexts
such as Australia and North America where teachers are vel! supported professionall
y.
I)rawingfi-om her survey research with 228 teachers in JO countries internationally
(China,
Colombia, Greece, Japan, Morocco. Poland, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Thailand, and
Tunisia),
Rainey (2000) bond that “a staggering” 75.5 percent had never heard of AR.
however
of the teachers who claimed to have heard of it, 75.9 percent also claimed
that they
had conducted sonic lorm of AR individually in their classrooms, although mainly
as
professional development rather than to learn about research. She argued that
two key
features stood out Iroinherinvestiganon the need for adequate research training
to conduct
AR and the need for support and extension of AR beyond the individual classroom.
These
conclusions raise the issue of factors typically reported as impeding teacher research;
lack
of time, and resources, limitations imposed by school structures and employment contracts,
problems gaining consent / support from school administrators, skills in acquiring
the
discourses of research and research writing, limitations on sources of advice,
criticism
from colleagues, and self-doubt (McKernan 1993).
Nonetheless there is some evidence from both researchers and teachers that AR
is
generally well received as an effective form of professional development by teachers
who
conduct it. Wadsworth (1998: 4) claims that the impact of AR includes assisting teachers
to become:

more conscious of “problematizing” an existing action or practice and more

conscious of who is problematising it and why we are prohiernatisting it;
more explicit about “naming” the problem, and more self-conscious about
raising an unanswered question and focusing an effort to answer it;
• more planned and deliberate about commencing a process of inquiry and
involving others who could or should be involved in that inquiry;
• more systematic and rigorous in our efforts to get answers;
• more carefully documenting and recording action and what people think
about it and in more detail and in ways which are accessible to other rele
vant parties;
• more intensive and comprehensive in our study, waiting much longer before
we “jump” to a conclusion;
• more self sceptical in checking our hunches;
o attempting to develop deeper undeiwtanding and more use/id and more powerful
theory about the matters we are researching in order to produce new knowledge
which can inform improved action or practice; and
• changing our actions as part of the research process, and then further research
ing these changed actions.

Anecdotally. support for these kinds of benefits is also reported by language teachers
themselves (e.g., Burns 1999; Edge 2001; Farrell 2006).

CURRENT kPPROACHES AND FRACTICE

Currently, the adoption of AR in second language teacher education programs can be seen
as falling into three major categories: (a) required components in formal undergraduate
or postgraduate courses; (b) collaborative teacher-researcher projects within educational
 Action Research in Second Language Teacher Education

organizations I programs; (c) individual projects by classro

om teachers / teacher educators.
Of these, the first and third appear to he the most prevale
nt.
n the tirst category, teachers typically undertake small-
scale projects that result in
term papers and class presentations (e.g., Tsui 1996;
Jones 2004; Borg 2005), although
increasingly action research dissertattons are being presen
ted at doctoral level (e.g., Ogane
2004; Rochsantiningsih 2004). The rationale for including
AR projects by the teacher edu
cators conducting these courses relates to their perceptions
of a need in teacher preparation
programs for closer attention to enacting pedagogy. providing
for future life-long learning
(Cmokes and Chandler 2001), raising awareness of the
relevance of research for teachers
and enhancing research skills (Jones 2004).
The second category typically comes from a view of AR
as a way to involve teachers
in wide-scale institutional curriculum change and contin
uing professional renewal. Such
programs are likely to emanate from government grants or
educational funding provided so
that researchers arid teachers can work together. In Australia,
Brindley (1990) and others
set an agenda advocating practitioner research that resulte
d in the continuing involvement
of teachers in AR projects for the Adult Migrant Englis
h Program for the following 15
years (e.g., Burns and Hood / de Silva Joyce 1995—
2005). The work by Tinker Sachs
in Hong Kong (2002) focused on AR with teachers in
primary and secondary schools
to foster effective practices in the teaching of English
and to offset “doubt on the part
of school officials about the professionalisation of teachers”
(2000: 35). Mathew (1997)
describes a large-scale curriculum implementation project
in India aimed at introducing
a communicative curriculuni into high schools. She notes
that the teacher-researcher role
“was based firmly, .albeit contentiously, on the belief
that curricular processes cannot be
evaluated without self-monitoring on the part of the teache
r” (pp. 2—3).
In addition to AR in academic or organizational settings,
a third category of AR is
by individual teachers and teacher educators. It is likely
that much of this type of AR
remains lucaliseci and unpublished (Crookes, personal commu
nication, 22 January, 2002)
and SO access to it is limited. Nevertheless, there is now
a small but growing body of
published work that can he drawn upon by other teachers.
Collections of accounts of
AR by individual teachers have appeared in recent years.
An early example with an AR
orientation was Richards (1998). The volume edited by
Edge (2001) in the TESOL Case
Studies in Practice Series, provides examples from a variety
of locations internationally,
including Japan, New Zealand, Brazil, Thailand, France
, the United Arab Emirates, and
New Zealand. Hadley (2003) reports on AR conducted
in South East Asian countries,
whereas the most recent series focusing on language teache
r research (edited by FalTel]
2006—09) concentrates on research carried out by language
teachers located in different
world regions, many of them underpinned by AR methodologies
. AR publications are also
to he found in a variety of journals, particularly those that
fbcus on language teaching
and classroom-based research. Language Teaching Research,
for example, now includes
a regular section entitled, “Practitioner research.” Some recent
examples are Gunn (2005)
and Li (2006). Profile, published in Colombia through the Nation
al University of Colombia,
was initiated to establish a Latin-American outlet for teache
r AR publications.
Bartels (20(11) posed the question: “Is action research only
for language teachers?”
His question was directed at what he saw as a lack of interes
t in or understanding of AR
in research done by teacher educators. This lack of interest
was preligured l)y Hammadou
(1993, cited in Crookes and Chandler 2001) who called for studies
on teacher education
that would exploit AR methodologies in particular. Indeed,
the majority of the (limited
number of) publications on AR produced by teacher educators
have tended to he of the
how-to variety, rather than being reflective of widespread experie
nces of condticting AR
themselves. 3armels (2005) was an attempt to redress this situatio
n by bringing together
reports of research on teaching practices in teacher education
settings that focused on
 Anne Burns

knowledge about language (KA

L). Chapters by Bigelow and Ran
Knox (2005 and (iregory (2005) ney (2005)’ Burns and
, for example, are accounts of
on their own teaching in universit AR— type studies carried out
y—based KAL courses. detailin
ways to operate mote effectively g insights tIie gained abo
as teacher educators. Despite this ut
studies by teacher editors are not coleulion. however, AR
widely published.

SUES AND bt.Ec]1oN

As Johnson (Chapter 2) points
out, recognition ot the importance
teacher reflection and inquiry in teacoer education o”
of which AR is one facet has
legitimized the status o
—

practitioner knowledge. Profess —

ional knowledge construction

largely flourished through individ through AR has, however.
ualized teacher researcher endeav
be exacerbated by sonic of the ors. This tendency may
suppolling literature on AR in the
teacher education. (‘rookes (19 fiel d of second language
93) critiques the propensity of’
a technicist. value-free, version of this Literature to promote
AR with its focus on classroo
2005), in preference to more pro m “problems” (Gebbard.
gressive, critical, socially constru
models. His arguments. though cted arid emancipatory
now over a decade old, highlig
that is still incomplete in the AR ht the need for a shift
“movement” iii language teacher
transrnissive to the transformat education from the
ional approaches now preferred
—

teacher education. As Roberts in current discussions of

(1998: 288) notes, the challenge
for teacher educators is to:

highlight the exchange between

individual development and its soc
text; positive relationships and ial con
opportunities for critical dialogu
consistent link between a person e; and a
’s work and the landscape in which
place. it takes

Lave and Wenger’s (1991) not

ion of “communities of practice”
route for this kind of shift wit ((X)P) offers a productive
hin AR practices and within teac
mote generally (see Singh and her education programs
Richards, Chapter 20). Learnin
within a process of engagemen g in the COP view is situated
t with others and is therefore a soc
than an individualized enterpri ially constructed rather
se. In this vein, Wells and Chiang
“communities of inquiry” whe -W ells, (1992) refer to
re opportunities are set up for teac
construct knowledge about AR coll her s and researchers to
ectively over time. Pedagogical kno
thus occurs through dialectic inte wledge construction
raction and critical exchange. AR
in teacher education contexts can com munities of inquiry
aim to create opportunities where teac
(rather than problem solve) thei hers probleniatize
r practices through collaborati
engage in the lived contexts, pro on and dial og, and critica!iy
cesses, procedures, challenges,
research. Participation in a com and outcomes of their
munity of inquiry is likely to hav
lasting impact on practice than e a more productive and
individualized learning. Within
educators should aim to scaffol suc h approaches. teacher
d not only the techniques and pra
epistemological and socializati ctic es of AR, hut also
on processes that will lead to gre
knowledge base for second languag ater understanding of tte
e teaching and learning.

ggeort or rtVir readt;

Burns, A. (I 999). Collaborative
action ,‘eearcht’r English languag
Cambridge University Press. e tecic’hei’s Cambridge:
.

Bums, A., & Hood. S. / de Silv

a Joyce, K. (Eds.). (1992—2005).
Sydney: National Centre for English Teachers’ 4nt’es Series.
Language Teaching and Researc
h.
 Action Research in Second Language Teacher Educat
ion

Edge, J. (2001). Action research. Case studies

in TESOL practice series. Alexandria:
TESOL
Farrell, T. (General Ed.). (2005—4)9). Language Teac
her Research in... Series. Alexandria:
TESOL. Asia (Farrell, 2006), Europe (Borg,
S. 2006), the Americas (McGarrell. H.
2007). the Middle East (Coombe, C. & Barlow, L.
2007). Australia and New Zealand
(Burns, A. & Burton, J. 2008), and Africa (Makalela
, M. & Kurgatbut, P. 2009).
Freeman, 1). (1998). Doing teacher research.
From inquiry to understanding. Boston:
Heinle & Heinle.
McKay, S. (2006). Researching second lang
uage classsrooms. Mahwah: NJ: Lawrence
Erihaum.
Wallace, M. (1998). Action research. Cambridg
e: Cambridge University Press.

References
Allwright, D. (1988). Ohsers.’ation in the lang
uage classroom. London: Longman.
Allwright, D., & Bai]ey, K. (1991). FOCUS Oil the
language classroom. Cambridge: Cam
bridge University Press.
Bartels, N. (2001). Professional preparation and
action research: Oniy for language teach
ers’? TESOL Quarterly, 36 (1), 71—78.
Bartels, N. (Ed.). (2005). Applied linguistics
in language teacher education. New York:
Springer.
Bigelow, M. H., & Ranney, S. H. (2005). Pre-servic
e teachers’ knowledge about language
and its transfer to lesson planning. In N. Bartels
(Ed.), Applied linguistics in language
teacher education (pp. 179—200). New York: Spri
nger.
Borg, S. (Ed.). (2005). Classroom research in ELT
in Oman. Muscat: Ministry of Education.
Borg, S. (2006). Conditions for teacher research.
English Teaching Forum, 44(4), 22—27.
Brindley, G. (1990). Towards a research agen
da for TESOL. Prospect: An Australian
Journal of TESOL, 6(1), 7—26.
Burns, A. (1999). Collaborative action researchJr
English language teachers. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Burns, A. (2005). Action research: An evolving
paradigm? Language Teaching, 38(2),
57—74.
Burns, A., & Hood, S. (Eds.). (1995). Teachers’
Voices 1: Exploring cour.ce design in a
changing curriculum. Sydney: National Centre
for English Language ‘reaching and
Research.
Burns, A., & Hood, S. /de Silva Joyce, H. (Eds
.). (1992—2005). Teachers’ Voices Series.
Sydney: NationaL Centre for English Language Teac
hing and Research.
Bums, A. & Knox, J. (2005). Realisation(s): Syst
emic functional linguistics and the lan
guage classroom. In N. Bartels, N. (Ed.), Applied
linguistics in language teacher
education (pp. 235—260). New York: Springer.
Cohen, L., & Manion, L. (1994). Research mnetho
ds in education (4th. ed.). London:
out1edge.
Cohen. L., Manion, L., & Morrison, K. (2000). Rese
arch methods in education. London:
Routledge.
Coles, P., & Quirke, P. (2001). Professional developm
ent through the action learning gate
way. Thai TESOL Newsletter, 14, 3, 14—20.
 Anne Burns

Crookes, G. (1993). Action research br second langua

ge teachers: Going beyond teacher
research, Applied Linguisrus, l42), 130—144.
C’rookes, G., & Chandler, P. (2001). introducing action researc
h into post—secondary foreign
language teacher education. Foreign Language Annals,
34(2). 13 1—40.
Edge, i. (Ed.). (2001 ). Action research. Alexandria, VA:
TESOL.
Farrell, T. S.C. (Ed.). (2006). Language leaching research
iii Asia. Alexandria. VA:
(Iehhard, J. (3. (2.005). Awareness of teaching througn action
research: Examples. bench is
and limitanons. JALT Journal, 27(1), 53—69.
Golombek, P. (1 998. A study of language teachers person
al practiea knowledge. TESOL
Quarterl’v, 32(3), 447—464.
Gregory, A. F. (2005). What’s phonetics got to do with
language teaching? Investigat
ing future teachers’ use of knowledge about phonetics
and phonology. In N. Bartels
(Ed.), Applied linguistics in language reacher education.
(pp. 201—220). New York:
Springer.
Gunn, C. (2005). Prioritizing practitioner research: An examp
le from the field. Language
Teaching Research, 9(1), 97—112.
Hadley, G. (Ed.). (2003). Action research in action. Singap
ore: SEAMEO Regional English
Language Centre.
Hammadou, J. (1993). Inquiry in language teacher educat
ion. In G. (.Iunterrnann. (Ed.),
Developing language teachers fr,r a changing world
(pp. 76—104). Lincolnwood, 11:
National Textbook Company.
Hopkins, D. (1993).A teacher’s guide to classroom researc
h (2nd. ed). Buckingham: Open
University.
Johnson, R. K. (1989). The second language curriculum.
New York: Cambridge University
Press.
Jones, J. (2004). The many benefits of a research component
in English language teacher
education: A ‘case study’. Prospect: An Australian Journa
l of TESOL, 19(2), 25—38.
Kenimis, S., & McTaggart, R. (Eds.). (1988). The action
research planner (3rd. ed.).
Geelong, Victoria: Deakin University Press.
Kitchen, M., & Jeurissen, M. (2004). Developing a culture
of teachers as researchers. Many
Voices, 22, 16—20.
Lave, J., & Wenger. F. (1991). Situated learning. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Li. N. (2006. Researching and experiencing motivation:
A plea for ‘balanced research’.
Language Teaching Research, 10(4), 237—456.
Lotherington, H. (2002). Coordinated action research as
a model fur PD in bilingual
education. Australian Language Matters, 10(2), 5.
Mathew, R. (1997). CBSE-ELT (‘urriculurn iinplemeiztatio
iz study. Final report. Central
institute of English and Foreign Languages, 1-lyderahad: Depart
ment of Evaluation.
McKernan, J. (1993). Curriculum action research (2nd.
ed.). London: Kogan Page.
Mcleod, V. (2003). Interlanguage analysis as a tool for teache
rs. In J. Burton & C. ClencH.
(Edsj, interaction and language learning (pp. 23—34).
McNiff, J. (1988). Action research: Principles and practice.
London: Routledge.
Nunan, D. (1989). Understanding language classrooms:
A guide Jir teacher-initiated
action. New York: Prentice Hall.
 Action Research in Second Language Teacher Education

Ogane, B, Y. M. (2004). Beliefs awl practices of Japanese unis’errity students towards

dialogue journaling and language learning: An ethnographic action research study.
Dissertation Abstracts International, Section A: The Humanities and Social Sciences,
64 (7), 2369—70. Retrieved December 5, 2004, from MLA International Bibliography
Database.
Rainey, 1. (2000). Action research and the Eiiglish as a ireign language practitioner: Time
to take stock. Educational Action Research, 8(1), 65—91.
Richards, J. C. (Ed.). (1998). Teaching in action. Alexandria, VA: TESOL.
Richards. J. C., & Farrell, T. S. C. (2005). Professional des’elopmenrfrr language teachers:
Strategies/or teacher learning. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Roberts, J. R. (1993). Evaluating the impact of teacher research. System, 21(1), 1—19.
Roberts, J. R. (1998). Language teacher education. London: Arnold.
Rochsantiningsih, D. (2004). Ezhancing proftssional development of indonesian high
school teachers through action research. Unpublished PhD thesis, Macquarie Uni”
versity, Sydney.
Sayer, P. (2005). An intensive approach to building conversation skills. ELT Journal, 59(l),
14—22.
Tinker Sachs, G. (2002). Action research. Fostering and furthering effective practices in
the teaching of English. Hong Kong: City University of Hong Kong.
Tsui, A. (1996). Reticence and anxiety in second language learning. In K. M. Bailey
& D. Nunan. (Eds,), Voices fthin the language classroom (pp. 145—67). New York:
Cambridge University Press.
van Lier, L. (1988). The classroom and the language learner. London: Longman.
Wadsworth, Y. (1998). What is participatory action research? Action Research Inter
national. retrieved March 13, 2007, from www.scu.edu.au/schools/gcmJar/ari/p
ywadsworth98.htm1.
Wallace, M. (1991). Training foreign language teachers. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.
Wallace, M. (1998). Action research for language teachers. Cambridge: Cambridge Uni
vdrsity Press.
Wells, G., & Chang-Wells, G. L. (1992). Constructing knowledge together. Portsmouth,
NH.: Heinemann.
Williams, M., & Burden, R. L. (1997). Psychology for language teachers: A social con
structivist approach. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Zeichner, K. M., & Liston. D. P. (1996). Reflective teaching. An introduction. \1ahwah, NJ:
Lawrence Eribaum.
View publication stats